Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/44/2014

Jorawar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kuldeep Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Harjit Singh

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                  Consumer Complaint No.44 of 2014

                                                                                                                      Date of institution: 01/04/2014                                                                                                                                                 Date of decision  :   28.10.2015

Jorawar Singh son of Sh. Banta Singh, resident of Village Bhamian, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Kuldeep Electronic, near Diljan Karyana Store, Kheri Naudh Singh, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor.
2. Videotex International Pvt. Ltd. Unit-III, Plot No.347-C, Udyog Kendra-II Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar(U.P.)-201306 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. M/s J.B. Electronics, D-153, Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali-16005 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12  to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                                                                                                                                           Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :   Sh.Harjit Singh Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                                                                                                                                        Sh. T.S.Kang, Adv. Cl. for OP No.1                                                                                                                                                             Sh. Harkamal Singh, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.                                                                                                                                          None for OP No.3.

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                 Complainant, Jorawar Singh son of Sh. Banta Singh, resident of Village Bhamian, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant purchased a Videotex LED T.V. Model No.24LE100 from OP No.1, vide bill No.650 dated 3.11.2013, amounting to Rs.13,500/- in installments. At the time of purchase of said LED T.V., OP No.1 gave 1 year guarantee/warrantee and also assured that OPs will provide best services.  Soon after the purchase of said LED T.V., it became defective, the picture was not clear and the same stopped functioning in the month of December 2013. On intimation, OP No.1 repaired the said LED and assured that in future it will function properly. But after some days the same defect occurred again in the said LED. The complainant again informed OP No.1 regarding the defect. Thereafter the mechanic of the OPs repaired the said LED and it was again assured that in future it will function properly. But again in the month of February 2014 the said LED stopped functioning. The complainant again informed the OPs regarding the said defect and OP No.1 told the complainant that the said LED will be sent to its shop at Mohali for replacement, as there is a manufacturing defect and the same could not be repaired. The complainant handed over the LED to OP No.1 for its replacement but it did not issue any receipt regarding handing over of said LED despite request made by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the OPs either to deliver the new LED T.V. or to refund the amount as the same is within guarantee/warrantee period, but the OPs did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant and finally the OPs totally refused to do anything in this matter. It is stated by the complainant in his complaint that an amount of Rs.3490/- regarding price of the said LED T.V. is due towards him and he is ready to pay the said amount to the OPs, if they deliver the new LED T.V. to the complainant.  The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to deliver the new LED T.V. to the complainant or to refund the amount and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.              The complaint is contested by the opposite parties. In reply to the complaint the OP No.1 stated that as per rules of manufacturer of L.E.D., company has issued the warrantee of LED for one year only to change the parts due to defect and not issued any guarantee to change the LED with new one. It is further stated that the complainant had informed OP No.1 in the month of March 2014 regarding the defect of Audio and Video only and OP No.1 sent the mechanic at the residence of complainant and brought the LED to remove the defect. There was a minor defect in the LED and the same was removed on the same day. OP No.1 has sent the message to the complainant through phone to collect the LED but the complainant did not come to the shop of OP No.1. The balance amount of Rs.3490/- was also not paid by the complainant.  It is further stated that there is no defect in the LED and the same is lying at the shop of OP No.1 due to non payment of balance amount. After denying all the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              In reply to the complaint OP No.2 stated that the complainant is not a consumer of it as it used to supply their produce to their Distributor i.e. Amar Electronics, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala and thereafter the Distributor used to supply the same to the other dealers. OP No.2 further stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the said LED TV and if there is any manufacturing defect, then it is ready to remove the said defect on production of the LED at their registered  office situated at village Khakat, G.R.Road, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.              In reply to the complaint, OP No.3 stated that it is the manufacturer of the Vedeotex LED T.V. and it only handles the manufacturing related process for the same product.  The complainant bought the said LED T.V. from OP No.1 and the warrantee and guarantee is given by OP No.2,  who marketing the said LED T.V. OP No.3 has not given any such offer. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant stands against OP No.1 and 2. After denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

6.              In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered attested copy of bill dt.03.11.2013 Ex. C-1, his affidavit Ex. C-2, affidavit of Jagjit Singh Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.  Kuldeep Singh Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.T.R.Sharma,  Ex. OP2/1, attested copy of authority letter Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.  OP No.3 failed to produce any evidence and his evidence was closed by order.

7.              The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that LED TV went out of order thrice within a period of 3 months after purchase. It was repaired twice by OP No.1. On the third occasion, OP No.1 informed the complainant that it could not be repaired since there was manufacturing defect. The LED TV was handed over to OP No.1 for replacement in February 2014. Even after repeated visits to the shop of OP No.1 neither the LED TV has been repaired nor replaced. Thus there is grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus pleaded for accepting his prayer and penalizing the OPs.

8.              The Ld. counsel for OP No.1 pleaded that there was minor defect of audio and video only and the same was removed. OP No.1 also sent message to the complainant to collect the LED TV after paying the balance payment but the complainant did not turn up to collect the LED TV and thus pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

9.              The Ld.counsel for OP No.2 argued that the complainant was not his consumer. OP No.2 supplies LED TV to their distributor, which further supplies it to the retailers and was ready to repair the LED TV, if there was any manufacturing defect.

10.            OP No.3 neither submitted any written arguments nor addressed oral arguments. The authorized representative of OP No.3 Mr. Binod Jha, A.G.M. submitted its written version only in which it was pleaded that it only handles the manufacturing related process of LED TV. The complaint was against OP No.1 & 2. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.3.

11.            Though the complainant has not attached any expert opinion or document to show that the LED TV was not working properly due to manufacturing defect or any other defect except his complaint and his affidavit in support thereof. On the other hand the OPs have also not produced any document/expert opinion to prove that there was no manufacturing defect.

12.            After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral submissions made, we are of the view that the OP No.1 has committed an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The acts and conduct of OP No.1 by not rendering proper after sale service and  even during the proceedings was not appreciated by this Forum. OP No.1 has neither repaired the LED TV nor sent it to OP No.2 or OP No.3 for replacement. For the last more than 1 ½ years the LED TV is lying with OP No.1, even then no action has been taken either regarding proper repair or replacement by OP No.1. 

13.            Therefore, the complaint is allowed against OP No.1 and is dismissed against OP No. 2 and No.3. The OP No.1 is directed;

a)     To repair/rectify the LED TV free of cost, since it was under warrantee/guarantee and return it to the complainant in proper and effective working condition after receiving the balance payment, If any.

b)     If the problem still persist then to replace the LED TV of the complainant with the same model in proper and effective working condition, after receiving the balance payment if any, within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

c)      or in alternative to refund to him the amount of LED TV received from the complainant.

d)     and to pay to the complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.4,000/-(Four Thousands only) towards the compensation for mental tension and harassment and cost of litigation.

14.            OP No.1 is directed to comply with the directions within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the compliance is not done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the amount in column No. (c) and (d) will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

15.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period, since there were chances of compromise and many opportunities were given for the same but it could not be effected.

16.           The arguments on the complaint were heard on 21.10.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                                              Dated:28.10.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

    (A. B. Aggarwal)         Member