Haryana

Ambala

CC/10/2015

Rishi Raj Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Madaan

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         10 OF 2015

                             Date of Institution                :         12-01-2015

                             Date of Decision                  :         29.01.2016

Rishi Raj Sharma son of Sh.T.R.Sharma, , resident of Ward No.12, Panjalasa Chowk, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

:::::::Complainant.

                                                                                        Versus

1.                 L G Electronics India Pvt.Ltd, A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.                Sh. Devi Dayal, Prop. of Saini  Electronics Main Bazar, Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-             Sh.Ashok Madaan,Adv.counsel for complainant

                           Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva,Adv.counsel for OP No.1

                          OP No.2 ex-parte.                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased  LCD LG –PLAZMA TV Model No. 42PA 4520-ATS, Serial No. 209PPPD00 4688  vide cash memo No.1424 dated 12/11/2012 in a sum of Rs.39,750/- from OP No.2 who is authorized dealer of OP No.1. At the time of purchase of above said LCD-TV, OP No.2 has assured to complainant  that LCD is one of the reputed top brands of the country and the manufacturing company has made the same as defect free. It has been alleged by the complainant that  the said LCD  was having manufacturing defects from the very beginning as the picture tube was not giving accurate photo and having many complaints and thus he brought the matter into the notice of OP No.2 on 10-10-2014. Thereafter the mechanic of the company visited the house of complainant and after examination of TV in question, the panel of the LCD was found to be damaged which required replacement. Complainant requested the mechanic to replace the same as the TV is under warranty and it is manufacturing defect but the mechanic refused to do so rather demanded Rs.22,000/- for replacement. Thereafter the complainant got served legal notice upon the respondents on 18-11-2014 but of no use. As such, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para of the complaint.

 

2.          Notice of complaint was served upon all the OPs wherein OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed reply  to the complaint  whereas OP no. 2 failed to appear despite registered notice duly served  and  as  such  OP No.2  was  proceeded  against  ex-parte on 17-7-2015.

 

3.           OP no.1 urged in the reply that the product in question is not within warranty period and as such, complainant has neither locus standi nor cause of action to file the present complaint. On  merits,  it  has   been  admitted  that  the  LCD  in  question was  purchased  by  complainant  on 12-11-2012 and the LCD is not having any manufacturing defect and it is unjust to say after a long period of 2 years that there is manufacturing defect in it. However, on the complaint of complainant,   service engineer of company visited the premises of complainant and found that the panel of LCD was having some problem and told that it was to be replaced at the cost of complainant as the LCD has become out of warranty as well as the problem has occurred due to negligence in usage by the complainant. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

4.           In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed his evidence whereas counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of one Jyoti Parsad, authorized signatory of OP company as Annexure  R-X  and closed his evidence.

         

5.         We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file by the complainant. From perusal of above referred documents, it is nowhere proved that the LCD in question was having any problem or defects during the warranty period as alleged in the complaint since no job sheet or even affidavit of technical person or mechanic has been placed on file by the complainant wherefrom it is established that the LCD in question was having any inherent or manufacturing defect. Besides it, complainant has reported the matter to the OP company after 2 years i.e. during the period of out of warranty as appears from the pleadings of the parties.

 

6.        In view of the facts discussed above, the  complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                                                                                                               Sd/-

Announced: 29.01.2016                                                              ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                        ( PUSHPINDER KUMAR )

                                                                                  MEMBER