BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:         10.04.2015

                                                    Date of Decision:           05.10.2015

Sandeep Sharma son of Shambhu Sharma resident of village Balongi through authorised representative Brijesh Kumar son of Tirloki Yadav resident of village Sohana, Tehsil and District Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Krishna Electronic, Shop No.182, Dashmesh Market, Balongi, District Mohali through its Proprietor.

2.     L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd. Company, Customer Care Service, Office D-174, Phase-8B, Industrial Area, Mohali.

3.     L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd. Company Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida-201306.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person with counsel Sh. Ashok K. Verma.

                Shri Arjun Grover, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the OPs to:

(a)    to refund him  the amount paid by him on 23.10.2014.

(b)    to pay him Rs.20,000/- for mental and physical harassment.

(c )   to pay him Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service.

(d)    to pay him Rs.5,000/- as costs of legal notice and Rs.20,000/- as cost of the present proceedings.

                The case of the complainant is that Brijesh Kumar had purchased LG LED through the complainant. The LED was having one year warranty. After few days of its purchase the LED automatically turned off and thereafter it did not turn on. The complainant lodged a complaint with customer care service on 24.02.2015 vide complaint No.RNA150224030684 but none came from the Ops. Another complaint was made by the complainant on 27.02.2015 and then an official of the Ops checked the LED and told that some part of it is defected and there is also manufacturing defect in the LED and assured the complainant that they will come back after few days. The complainant again lodged the complaint on 01.03.2015 and the Ops sent him the messages that the complaint of the complainant is under process and they will repair the LED as soon as possible but till today nobody came to check the LED. The complainant also sent legal notice to the Ops stating that either to change the LED or to refund the amount. The complainant even visited the office of the Ops many times but all in vain.   With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             The OPs in the joint written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed on conjectures and surmises. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts.  The LED was purchased by the complainant on 24.10.2014 for Rs.23,490/-  which was installed on 25.10.2014. The complainant for the first time contacted on 24.02.2015 with the complaint of blur display on the LED screen and the Ops immediately deputed an engineer. When on 26.02.2015 the engineer of the Ops visited the complainant, he found no problem with the LED as in fact there was a problem in the cable wire which was loose. The engineer corrected it and he told the complainant that there is no fault in the product.  On the complaint made on 27.02.2015, the engineer found that the product was working perfectly and this time the complainant did not know how to use the remote for some colour adjustments and the engineer assisted the complainant to his satisfaction.  Then on 14.03.2015 after the complaint of the complainant, the engineer found that a fault has occurred in the main PCB of LED and the engineer informed the complainant that the product is under warranty and it will be replaced by the Ops free of costs but the complainant refused to get the product repaired and asked for a new LED. The Engineer also contacted the complainant on 18.04.2015 for replacement of the PCB of the LED but the complainant informed that he is out of station and will comeback after 10 days.  The complainant was contacted time and again but finally the complainant took a u turn while declining the offer of replacement of PCB and demanded replacement of LED. On merits, also the Ops have taken the stand which has been pleaded in the preliminary objections. Lastly the Ops have denied any deficiency in service on their part and have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the authorized representative of the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-4.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Naresh Kumar, their Regional Service Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

6.             The purchase of LED on 24.10.2014 against payment of Rs.23,490/- by the complainant from the Ops against invoice Ex.C-   is not disputed. The first complaint as per the complainant on 26.02.2015 regarding blurred display of the LED screen has been attended to by the engineer of the Ops. As per the engineer report the blur display was not due to defect in the LED but due to loose cable wire and the same was corrected. Further another complaint dated 27.02.2015 regarding the colour adjustment of the display screen was too attended to by the Ops. The main grievance of the complainant is that on 14.03.2015 he has lodged a complaint and the engineer of the Ops found some fault in the main PCB. Since the product is under warranty the Ops offered to replace the PCB free of costs and asked the complainant to be available at his place. As per the complainant the Ops have never turned to replace the PCB and his complaint remained unattended. Therefore, the complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of the Ops after sale service.

7.             The Ops have in the written statement admitted sale of LED to the complainant and further having admitted received the complaints. Further, so far complaint dated 14.03.2015 is concerned, the Ops have admitted fault in the PCB of the LED but denied any deficiency in after sale service in attending to this complaint on the ground that they were always willing and ready to replace the PCB free of costs as the LED was under warranty. It was the complainant who himself was not cooperating and, therefore, they could not replace the defective PCB. Therefore, they have denied any deficiency in service on their part.

8.             During the course of proceedings of the present complaint, the complainant agreed to allow the Ops to visit his place and replace the defective PCB which the Ops have replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant as per the report submitted on 21.09.2015. Thus, the grievance of the complainant is well addressed and we do not find anything amiss on the part of the OPs.

9.             In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

October 05, 2015.        

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member