Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/299

VIDUSHI KAPILA - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG ELECTRONICD INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

Case No. 299/2016  

VIDUSHI KAPILA

W/O SH. SHASHI KAPILA

H.NO. 16/25, PUNJABI BAGH

EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110026

                                                                         ….. Complainant

 

                       VERSUS

 

LG ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

36, MAIN RAMA ROAD,

NAZAFGARH ROAD

INDUSTRIAL AREA

NEAR MOTI NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110015

 

 

                                                                              .…. Opposite Party

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant purchased LG Plasma TV 50PJ560R vide invoice no.SAV3495 for a sum of Rs. 59,500/- from M/S Sargam electronics on 16.02.2011. The product in dispute developed fault on 19.04.2014 and the engineer of OP repaired and charged Rs. 1125/-.  It is alleged that the on 19.04.2014 complainant  took AMC for two years by paying a sum of Rs. 9235/-. The display screen of the LG Plasma developed fault and the picture got dull and faded and during course of time it automatically turned off. The complainant informed OP and complaint was registered vide no. RNMA 160313013503 and RNA 16031800315. Thereafter the engineer from OP visited and inspected the TV which was under AMC warranty. The engineer of OP told the complainant that there is fault in the internal hardware of the Plasma TV and replaced hardware component and assured that the TV will work properly. It is alleged that the LG plasma TV stopped working after few days despite repair and again complaint was lodged with customer care of OP. The engineer of the OP repaired the product in dispute and assured, now it would work properly and also assured that in case there would be some problem in future the OP would change the display screen. But despite all the assurances the plasma TV again developed same problem and complaint was lodged and it was advised to the complainant to talk to Shri Manmeet and Surjeet concerned head of the department. The complainant contacted the concerned person on 28.03.2016 and they assured that they would replace the display screen. It is alleged that the AMC terms and conditions provide repair and replacement. Despite the assurances to replace the screen OP failed to change the display screen. The OP has adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on their part. Hence the present complaint for directions to OP to replace the faulty display screen and sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and  harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of OP.        

         After Notice OP appeared and contested the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true facts and there is no cause of action against OPs and prayed for the dismissal  of the complaint.  

        On merits it is asserted that the product under dispute had no defects and was delivered in perfect working condition. it is asserted that the AMC was purchased with the intention to have some monetary gain and to extrote  money from OP. It is averred that the T.V was purchased on 16.02.2011 with only one year warranty and was delivered in perfect working conditions and first complaint was lodged on 18.04.2014 and same was repaired for which charges are paid by the complainant. It is asserted that the complainant some how managed to take AMC and again on 13.03.2016  the complaint was made it was promptly attended by the engineer of OP who reported panel defective and part are NSP as the product in dispute is old model. The complainant was suggested to take buy back policy. It was averred that as per terms and condition of AMC there is no policy to replace and also stated that as per clause -7 op was not liable and denied all other allegations by the complainant and again prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

        Complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as stated in the complaint. She relied on annexure- A invoice dated 16.02.2011, annexure –B invoice dated 19.04.2014, annexure-C AMC dated 19.04.2014 and annexure-D email dated 08.04.2016.

OP also filed affidavit of evidence of Shri Mohd. Arif deputy manager and reaffirming the facts stated in the reply and contorvering the stand taken by the complainant. It also relied on annexure R-1 job sheet dated 18.03.2016. Parties have also filed written arguments.

        We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of complainant.

        The case of the complainant is that she purchased Plasma TV  for which she took AMC and during AMC the product developed fault which was time and again repaired by  the OP but the problem still persisted. From the perusal of the AMC it reveals that the product is covered under AMC warranty and from the terms and condition it is crystal clear that it covers picture tube. The contention of the op is that the complainant somehow managed to take AMC of the product in dispute is also not tenable as OP itself issued AMC for the product well knowing the fact that the product in dispute was old one. Further the contention of the OP that as per clause -7 the OP is not under obligation to provide repairs or replace does not hold water as the clause clearly stipulates the condition under which OP would not be liable but not such condition are stated by the OP.  Therefore, the OP is bound by the terms and conditions of the AMC and by not honoring the contract OP has failed to provide services. Hence we are of opinion that the OP is liable to refund the AMC amount and depreciated cost of the Plasma TV.

In view of the above discussion and observations we direct OP to refund a sum of Rs. 9235/- AMC amount within 45 days from receipt of this order and also award a compensation a sum of Rs. 2000/- on account of mental agony harassment and litigation charges.     

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

        File be consigned to record room.

  Announced  this____05 FEB__ day of _________ 2019.

(K.S. MOHI)                                                             (PUNEET LAMBA)

  President                                                                          Member