BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.499 of 2016
Date of Instt. 23.12.2016
Date of Decision: 24.04.2018
1. Rohit Chopra S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra R/o H. No.NB Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar City, Punjab Pin 144001 age 32 years.
2. Surinder Kumar Behl S/o Sh. Ram Murti Behal R/o 17 Link Road, Kapurthala. Age 52
..........Complainants
Versus
1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing 3rd Floor, Distt. Center Saket, New Delhi-110017, India through its Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
2. United Digital Services, through its Managing Director, through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
1153 Sant Nagar, Ladowali Road, Near Dairy Office, Jalandhar.
3. Thind Electronics Center, Near Shehnai Palace, Kanjali Road, Opposite Jaggi Market Kapurthala through its Managing Director through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv Counsel for the Complainants.
Sh. Satnam Singh, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 and 3 exparte.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. This complaint is filed by complainant under Section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against above mentioned OP in regard to deficiency in service by the OP in installation of the product purchased from the OP and also seek a relief, a direction to the OP to replace the product LG LED and also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a customer and he has purchased a LG LED from OP No.3, vide Invoice 3356 dated 25.12.2015, amounting to Rs.21,800/- and the same was delivered to the complainant. On this complainant gave a request on a toll free number of LG i.e. 18003159999 regarding the problem in the LED about the problem in the picture/display of the LED on 19.11.2016 bearing registration number RNA 16119009923 and the complainant was assured that within 24 hours problem will be resolved, but nobody came to attend the complainant and later on 14.12.2016, reminder call was given by the complainant regarding the already registered complaint number then complainant was shocked to know about that the complaint was closed with a remarks that non availability of the bill, then complainant told to the representative nobody came to the house of the complainant on this representative of the LG Company assured apologized for the same and told to the complainant that you have the matter will be escalated to the concerned department. Even after this, complainant did not receive any information about the status of the complaint. Then on 23.12.2016, complainant again called on the toll free number of the OP No.1, then enquired about status of the complaint of the complainant, then a representative of the OP told that the OP can registered a new complaint only as the matter which is escalated to the concerned department do not reflect in the system, but OP can open a new complaint if the complainant wants and a new complaint was opened on 23.12.2016 RNP 161223099551 and at the same point of time complaint generated an online SR bearing number CCN-2016122310660. That complainant waited for the technician, but no one came from the OP, so till 23.05.2016 complainant called to the Lloyd Office and after taking the number of the concerned person then complainant came to know that his request for installation was closed by the service centre so, the complainant requested to the concerned person that its a summer days and complainant cannot survive without AC in his room and complainant is sent a request on 10.05.2016 for the installation of the product and they have not sent a technician and he is quiet busy in his work, whenever he will get time, he will definitely come in the house of the complainant for installation of the product.
3. That this is not the level of service, which a customer expect from the multinational company and this deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 and accordingly, a notice was served, but all in vain and necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP No.1 and 2 be directed to replace the the product of the complainant on priority basis and further OP No.1 and 2 be directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and after due service, OP No.2 and 3 failed to appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
5. OP No.1 served and appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the same is vague and evasive and further averred that the complaint under reply is a gross abuses of the process of law. The instant complaint filed by the complainant with the sole motive to pressurizing and harassing the answering OP and even the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same has not been properly drafted or clarify the facts which the complainant wants to present before the Forum nor the same has been filed under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and further alleged that the complainants are not falls under the definition of Consumer and moreover, the complainant No.1 Rohit Chopra has no concern with the present complaint as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of LED is admitted, but the remaining contents of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith document Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. After going through the contents of the complaint, it has become clear that the complainant No.1 Rohit Chopra has no concern or has no role in the purchase of the electronic product i.e. LG LED and for the best known reason to the complainant, the said complainant Rohit Chopra is impleaded as complainant No.1, even the bill of the product i.e. LG LED is not stand in the name of either of the complainants i.e. Rohit Chopra or Surinder Kumar Behl rather the bill Ex.C-1 stands in the name of one Surinder Pal, if so then, neither of the complainants is a consumer because if they have not purchased the product in question and as such, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable on this ground.
10. Furthermore, the complainant has not alleged in the complaint that how the District Consumer Forum, Jalandhar has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, though at the time of admission of the complaint, this Forum admitted the complaint, simply on the basis of story narrated in the complaint and when reply has been filed by the OP, then the factum in regard to jurisdiction of this Forum has arisen. The complainant deliberately and intentionally mention in the complaint that one of the complainant Rohit Chopra is residing in Jalandhar, hence, this Forum has jurisdiction, but further the complainant did not disclose that what act has been done by the complainant Rohit Chopra. Moreover, the product has been purchased from Kapurthala and the purchaser Surinder Pal is also resident of Kapurthala and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and therefore, this complaint is dismissed with the direction to return the compliant alongwith relevant documents to the complainant, for further presented the complaint within the appropriate jurisdiction i.e. District Forum, Kapurthala, if the complainant desired. The period consume in this Forum will be deducted from the limitation period, at the time of filing the fresh complaint. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. Remaining papers of the complaint be consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
24.04.2018 Member President
