BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.127 of 2018
Date of Instt. 27.03.2018
Date of Decision:21.02.2022
Malkiat Singh aged about 64 years S/o Sh. Mehinga Singh R/o H. No.B/IX 757/6, New Santokh Pura, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Kohli Digital Home 13-14, Sanjay Gandhi Market, Jalandhar City through its Proprietor.
2. Sh. Sushil Kumar Kohli Proprietor of Kohli Digital Home 13-14, Sanjay Gandhi Market, Jalandhar City.
3. M/s Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1, M.I.D.C., Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri Mumbai-400 093 through its Managing Director.
4. Onida Service Center, 163-Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar through its Proprietor/Authorized Person.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Rajneesh Khanna, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.3 & 4.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that he purchased one Onida LED 32 HD from OPs No.1 and 2 vide bill No.3600 dated 30.06.2016 worth Rs.16,500/- with three years warranty, vide warranty card bearing serial no.30N369012 dated 30.06.2016. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the above said LED. The OP No.4 is the service center of the Onida Company. That unfortunately on 18.03.2018 the LED of the complainant went out of order and there is no picture being flashed on the LED. The complainant made a complaint on the customer care no.18001031000 on 19.03.2018 and complaint no.18031086380720 was given to the complainant. The official of the OP No.4 came to the house of the complainant on 20.03.2018 and told the complainant after inspecting the LED that the panel of the LED has been damaged and in case the complainant wants to get the LED repaired in that event he has to pay Rs.12,000/- for replacement of the panel. The complainant told the OP No.4 that the said LED is within warranty period of three years and as such the OPs should either replace the LED with new one or to change the panel free of cost. The complainant also met OPs No.1 and 2 and told regarding the manufacturing defect occurred in the LED product due to which the picture of the LED was not visible. However, the OPs No.1 and 2 in active connivance of OPs No.3 & 4 did not listen to the grievances of the complainant. The OPs have neither replaced LED nor rectified the defect and rather the OPs are illegally demanding Rs.12,000/- for the replacement of the panel of the LED which is clear violation of the warranty period of the said product as given by the OPs to the complainant. That the above said act of the OPs tantamount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,500/- the price of the LED alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, financial loss and harassment due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 and 2 did not appear and ultimately, the OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.3 & 4 appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs No.3 & 4. That the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission as the alleged purchased Onida LED 32 HD was never purchased by the complainant. The complainant has purchased Onida LED 32 HA as per the bill dated 30.06.2016 of Rs.16,500/- which is of warranty of one year which has already been lapsed on 26.09.2017. Moreover, the alleged purchased Onida LED 32 HA is not covered under the warranty period of three years. The alleged extended warranty card itself clearly shows that the alleged purchase of Onida LED 32 HA does not cover the alleged warranty period of three years. So only on this ground the complaint is liable to the dismissed with special cost. It is further averred that the present complaint is not within limitation. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the Onida LED by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint on the customer care number on 19.03.2018, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 i.e. Retail Invoice, Ex.C-2 i.e. Warranty Card and Ex.C-3 Copy of Aadhar Card and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3&4/A alongwith copy of Resolution/Authority Letter as Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the argument from Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully.
7. The case of the complainant is that he purchased one Onida LED 32 HD from OPs No.1 & 2 with the warranty of three years on 30.06.2016, but the LED went out of order on 18.03.2018 as no picture was being flashed on it. His further contention is that on complaint of complainant, the official of OP No.4 came to the house and informed the complainant that the panel of the LED has been damaged and that is to be changed and he has to pay the money, when the product was within warranty period. Thereafter, despite his complaint and representation, none of the OPs came to redress his grievances and he has sought the price of LED alongwith damages for harassment and legal expenses.
8. The contention of the OP is that the complainant has never purchased LED 32 HD rather he has purchased LED 32 HA with warranty of one year and as per the warranty card, it is not covered for three years as alleged by the complainant. The complaint made by the complainant on 19.03.2018 has been admitted by the OPs and it has also been admitted that the official of OP No.4 went to the house of the complainant and informed him about the damaged panel of the LED. His further contention is that since the LED was not within warranty, therefore he has to pay the money for replacement. It has been denied that the grievances of the complainant were not redressed. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.
9. Ex.C-1 is the Invoice of the LED dated 30.06.2016. From the Invoice, the model of the LED can be read both as 32 HA as well as 32 HD. As per the version of the complainant, the same is LED 32 HD with warranty of three years, as per warranty card Ex.C2, whereas the contention of the OP is that the model 32 HA was sold and that is not within warranty. As per Ex.C-2, the warranty card which is extended warranty card i.e. 1 + 2 = 3, the serial number of the product has been mentioned which was allegedly purchased by the complainant, but in the Invoice Ex.C-1, no serial number of the product has been mentioned and as per this card Ex.C-2, the model number 32 HA of purchased product has been mentioned. This document shows that the extended warranty was on specific models and as per this card, the model LED 32 HA or 32 HD is not covered, meaning thereby that the product purchased by the complainant was having one year warranty only and no extended warranty was given to the complainant for the above said LED. The complaint made by the complainant has been admitted by the OPs and it has been also admitted that the panel of the LED is damaged and the same is to be replaced. The complainant has purchased the LED on 30.06.2016 and the warranty period was upto 30.06.2017, but the LED went out of order on 18.03.2018, thus the same was not within warranty period. So, from all the facts, we do not find any force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant, thus there is no deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to repair the said LED from the OP No.4/Service Centre, on payment basis, if he so desires. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj 21.02.2022 Member Member President
