DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2018

                                               Date of institution:  23.02.2018                                             Date of decision   :  29.11.2018

Harjeet Singh, House No.185, Part-4, Village Sohana, Near Gurudwara, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A-5, MIDC Ranjangaon, Tal. Shirur, Pune 412220 through its General Manager/Authorised signatory.

2.     Kaveri Vision, SCO-60, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab, Contact No.01725092444 through its Store Manager/Store Owner/Authorised signatory.

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Manoj Rohilla, counsel for complainant.

Shri Arjun Grover, counsel for OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, a security guard in a private company, on 30.06.2017 purchased one LG LED TV from OP No.2 for price of Rs.28,000/-, but by paying Rs.1,000/- as down payment. Balance amount of Rs.27,000/- was to be paid through EMIs, which were to be deducted automatically from his bank account until December, 2017. Warranty of two years of purchased product was provided by OP No.2. After one week of use of LED, it was found that some white dots on the screen started surfacing, resulting in showing of poor picture. Complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 with request to replace the product, but it refused to accede to that request. On asking of OP No.2, complainant contacted OP No.1 through helpline for requesting for replacement of defective product, but no positive reply was received. In month of August, an engineer of OP No.1 visited residence of complainant and repaired the product by giving assurance that now complainant need not worry because LED TV will work fine. However, within one month of repair, same problem erupted and as such complainant had to contact OP No.2 again for complaining of the defect. OPs started making lame excuses. LED TV though defective has not been replaced and as such by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to refund Rs.28,000/-, the price of the product. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.60,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.             In joint reply submitted by OPs, it is claimed that complaint is filed on the basis of conjectures and surmises without any cogent reasons and as such in view of complainant having not approached this Forum with clean hands, complaint is not maintainable, more so when complainant also estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint. No deficiency in service on part of OPs is there. Complainant admittedly approached OP No.2 for purchase of LED TV manufactured by OP No.1 Company and he at his own will purchased LED TV manufactured in 2014. MRP of the product was Rs.38,900/-,  but complainant had to pay Rs.28,000/- only as price of this product. Warranty of one year on the product was provided from the date of purchase. Extended warranty of one year over and above the original warranty of one year more was provided. Product was in proper working condition, when it was sold. Complainant approached OP No.1 Company for the first time through customer care service centre on 05.08.2017 and thereafter on inspection of the product, minor faults in the screen of LED alone were found. Complainant was suggested to get the parts replaced free of costs because of warranty clauses. However, complainant denied to get the product in question repaired, but he sought replacement of LED. Job sheet in this respect was prepared. Again on 13.08.2017 OP No.2 agreed for replacement of faulty parts and those were replaced by engineer of OP No.1 on 14.08.2017. After replacement of these parts, complainant was fully satisfied with the performance of the product. Complainant approached OP No.1 again on 18.01.2018 and thereafter on deputing of engineer; he inspected the product for finding very minor dot visible on the front screen. Replacement of complete module sought though suggestion given for replacement of part. Inspite of appreciating level of quality service rendered by OP No.1, complainant denied replacement of parts and that is why complaint stood closed. Copies of job sheets dated 18.01.2018 and 22.01.2018 are annexed with the reply. It is claimed that OP No.1 Company is ready and willing to repair the product in question as per warranty policy, which did not provide for replacement, more so when there is no manufacturing defect, even as per reports of technical experts. Each and every other averment of complaint denied.

3.             Complainants to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Prasanta Bal, Branch Accounts Manager alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-3 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             From pleadings of the parties and the submitted affidavits, it is made out that complainant purchased LED TV in question from OP No.2 through invoice Ex.C-3 for amount of Rs.28,000/-, despite the fact that MRP of the product mentioned in Ex.C-2 was Rs.38,900/-. Date of manufacturing of product mentioned as 06.06.2014 in Ex.C-2 and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OPs has force that product in question was sold at discounted price to complainant because of date of manufacturing being of 2014. Date of purchase of product mentioned in Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 as 30.06.2017 and this product even as per case of OPs carried warranty of one year initially, but extended warranty of one more year.

6.             Defect in the LED took place in August, 2017 and that is why service requests on 14.08.2017 through SMS Ex.C-5 and then through Ex.C-6 were submitted. OP No.1 on being contacted through helpline, deputed engineer who prepared job sheets Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. There is nothing in Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 to establish that there is any manufacturing defect in the LED TV in question. Even complainant has not produced any evidence to show manufacturing defect in the product in question and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for OP has force that in fact on inspection of product in question, minor defects were found, owing to surfacing of dots on the front screen. However, complainant refused to get faults repaired, but insisted for replacement is a fact borne from affidavit of representative of OPs and also from contents of Ex.OP-3. From this conduct of complainant, it is made out that he is seeking replacement of product against warranty terms and conditions, despite the fact that warranty terms and conditions provides for repair of the product free of costs by way of replacement of faulty parts. OPs are ready and willing to repair the product even at present as projected through written reply and as such major deficiency in service on part of OPs is not there. However, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment because of fault in the product having erupted within one week of its purchase and subsequently on account of eruption of same after one month of first repair. Had the product been thoroughly checked at the time of first repair, then second fault may not have occurred, but that occurred and as such certainly complainant was put to mental agony and harassment. Complainant is not entitled for replacement because manufacturing defect is not established. However, entitlement of complainant is for getting the product in question repaired free of cost, which OPs must do within specified period.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OPs to repair the LED TV in question free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

November 29, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member