Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he had purchased one LG LED TV 32” through CSD for a sum of Rs.16,373/- on 20.10.2017 which was delivered by Opposite Party No.2 on 25.01.2017 vide challan No. 2706. To the utter surprise of the complainant that on 01.08.2017 the said LED TV stopped working due to some internal fault and for this, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and lodged the complaints and then, the executive of the Opposite Parties checked the same and told that there is some internal problem in it due to which the screen panel has damaged and a new screen panel will be installed in the said TV and for this they will charge Rs.15000/- and at this, the complainant told the representative of the Opposite Parties that the LED TV is still under warranty/ guarantee period, so it is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to change the same free of cost, but the Opposite Parties did not agree and refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service, and cheating by the Opposite Parties towards the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to repair/ replace the LED in question and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, financial loss and mental agony and to pay litigation expenses alongwith counsel fee.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the product LED TV has been physically mishandled by the complainant leading to breaking/ cracking of the display panel/ screen of the LED TV in question. The product is out of warranty due to physical damage caused to the product. In such case, the customer will have to pay for the repair of the product and complainant for the reason best known to him refused to pay for the repair charges. First and the only complaint lodged by the complainant in the month of August, 2017 the service engineer visited the house of the complainant and checked the product in question and it has been physically mishandled as its Panel was found broken due to which LED was not working. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant, but the complainant refused to get the LED repaired on chargeable basis and hence the product could not be repaired. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 also taken up same and similar as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
4. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
6. Opposite Parties No.1 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RA and close the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that he had purchased one LG LED TV 32” through CSD for a sum of Rs.16,373/- on 20.10.2017 which was delivered by Opposite Party No.2 on 25.01.2017 vide challan No. 2706. To the utter surprise of the complainant that on 01.08.2017 the said LED TV stopped working due to some internal fault and for this, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties and lodged the complaints and then, the executive of the Opposite Parties checked the same and told that there is some internal problem in it due to which the screen panel has damaged and a new screen panel will be installed in the said TV and for this they will charge Rs.15000/- and at this, the complainant told the representative of the Opposite Parties that the LED TV is still under warranty/ guarantee period, so it is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to change the same free of cost, but the Opposite Parties did not agree and refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the product LED TV has been physically mishandled by the complainant leading to breaking/ cracking of the display panel/ screen of the LED TV in question. The product is out of warranty due to physical damage caused to the product. In such case, the customer will have to pay for the repair of the product and complainant for the reason best known to him refused to pay for the repair charges. First and the only complaint lodged by the complainant in the month of August, 2017 the service engineer visited the house of the complainant and checked the product in question and it has been physically mishandled as its Panel was found broken due to which LED was not working. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant, but the complainant refused to get the LED repaired on chargeable basis and hence the product could not be repaired. The only plea of the Claimant-Corporation is that there is some internal defect/ or some manufacturing defect in the LED TV, but we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the complaint because the complainant has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. The complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect is available in the product in question as neither any expert report nor any other convincing material evidence has been placed on record. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to produce any iota of evidence to prove that there occurred any problem/ defect in the product in question. Moreover, the complainant has nowhere brought these problems/ defect in question in the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1 nor produced any job sheet in this regard or any manufacturing defect in the product in question, neither the complainant has ever produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject product suffers from any problems or to establish any manufacturing defect in the product in question. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Anr (1 (2010) CPJ 19 NC for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in the product made in the complaint. Not only this, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). In this case, the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the product lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the product. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove any defect/ problem or manufacturing defect in the product in question. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 28.06.2022.
