Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/531

Dr.Amit Saraf - Complainant(s)

Versus

LGEIL Ludhiana - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Kalyan Adv.

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 531 of 08.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   01.09.2016

 

Dr.Amit Saraf aged 35 years son of Sh. Gopal Saraf, resident of 137-G, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

LGEIL Ludhiana Direct Service, village Jhande, Near Baddowal Railway Station, Opp.Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

…Opposite party

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant after going through advertisement of OP on Snapdeal qua LG HD Smart LED TV 32 LB 582-B x 1 cm, purchased the same through invoice dated 2.12.2014 of Vinay Associates with one year warranty. The said LED was having very good features and that is why, the same was purchased with hope that due services will be provided through service centres in India. Payment was made at Ludhiana and delivery of the product even received at Ludhiana, but warranty conditions not supplied to the complainant. The picture quality of the above said LED was very poor since from its purchase and thereafter, the complainant moved complaint No.RNA150705013453 to the service centre. Said service centre advised for change of one part of the LED, so that quality of the picture may be good. Representative of OP admitted about the poor quality of the picture. Earlier two complaints No.RNA150521024555 and RNA150510032668 were lodged for the same purpose. Op changed the panel of the LED, but the same did not give any benefit to the complainant. Complainant realized as if OP will change all the parts one by one and his entire money will go waste. Intimation to the service centre vide email dated 6.7.2015 was submitted with a request to replace the defective set with new one of same model. Emails on 22.7.2015, 23.7.2015, 25.7.2015, 27.7.2015, 28.7.2015, 30.7.2015, 11.8.2015, 12.8.2015 and 13.8.2015 were sent, but OP finally refused to take any action in the matter. Op offered some other model in replacement in response to the email sent on 22.7.2015. That model was not of the choice of complainant because the same was not having the same features as were available in the purchased LED. So, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, prayer made for replacement of LED in question or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.30,527/-. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; complainant concealed the material and necessary information and complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law because no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. Besides, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service or breach of terms of the contract committed by Op. Service centre of OP never refused to provide services to the complainant. Rather, the complainant refused to get the product repaired from the OP or its authorized service centre or customer care centre. Present complaint alleged to be filed with malafide intention. As and when, the complaints were lodged with Op, the service engineer visited the premises of complainant for checking the LED in question, but complainant for the reason best known to him, refused to get the problem of picture quality of LED rectified. Op expressed readiness and willingness to rectify the problem in the LED, if permitted by the complainant. Liability of OP under the terms and conditions of the warranty was limited to the extent of setting right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. Complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect nor he pleaded about the inferior quality of the specific part of the product. Even report of the expert in respect of picture quality not got submitted by the complainant from the Central Approved Laboratories. In the absence of any expert evidence, claim of the complainant cannot be allowed because report of technical expert is essential for finding if the product is beyond the repair or not. Replacement or refund of the product is permissible where defect developed during the period of warranty and is of such a nature that it cannot be cured or repaired. Mere fact that the product was taken to the service centre on one or two occasions will not ipso facto prove the manufacturing defect. Complainant purchased LG HD Smart TV from Snapdeal through online shopping. Op is only the service centre of LG Electronics India Private Limited. As per records, the LED was sold vide invoice dated 2.12.2014 of Vinay Associates with one year warranty. Admittedly, the product has a very good features and OP provided services to its customers. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied. Replacement offered only as a goodwill   gesture, despite the fact that LED is in perfect working condition. Admittedly, complainant sent email on 22.7.2015, in response to which, the said goodwill gesture offered. Now an alternate model alone can be provided because the model of LED in question has gone out of production and stocks.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sucha Singh, Senior Manager of LG India Electronics Private Limited and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. But oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Undisputedly, the LED in question purchased through online via Snapdeal for consideration of Rs.30,527/-. Copy of bill of purchase in that    respect produced on record as Ex.C11. It is not disputed that the complainant sent emails to the OP for reporting about the problem of improper functioning of LED in question. Copies of emails Ex.C3 of date 13.8.2015, Ex.C4 of 30.7.2015, Ex.C5 of 11.8.2015, Ex.C6 of 27.7.2015, Ex.C7 of 23.7.2015,Ex.C8 of 22.7.2015, Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 are produced on record. In response to these emails, complainant claimed that he is ready to accept in replacement, LED of the same model and   not of any other model because the features of the purchased model were superior to the one offered in replacement through email Ex.C8.

7.                After going through Ex.C8, it is made out that LED model of customer (complainant) was 32LB582B.ATR, but he in the alternate was offered LED of model  32LF581B.ATR. Price of the offered LED is Rs.29,388/- as disclosed by Ex.C12, but price of the LED purchased by the complainant given in Ex.C11 as Rs.30,527/-. So, it is vehemently contended by Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate that offer of alternate LED in replacement is not acceptable to the complainant. However, contents of affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Sucha Singh, Senior Manager of LG India Electronics Private Limited establishes that complainant was given offer of repair of the LED, but he himself refused. Even the above referred correspondence available on record establishes that complaints of the  complainant were attended and that is why in replacement LED of alternate available model was offered to be provided. Even if the report of technical expert has not been produced on record by the complainant, but despite that as a goodwill gesture, Op themselves offered to replace the LED in question with new one and as such, virtually admission suffered by OP qua defects in the LED. Those defects are not cure-able and that is why in response to email dated 22.7.2015, offer of alternate model submitted to the complainant. Specific reference to para no.5 of the written statement can be made. As per contents of written statement, model of LED in question has gone out of production and out of stock and as such, offer of alternate model is quite appropriate. That offer not accepted by the complainant and as such, some fault is on the part of complainant also. OP can provide by replacement only that model as is available in the market and not the model, which has gone out of production and stocks.

8.                After going through warranty card Ex.C1, it is made out that replacement of the parts would be purely at the discretion of LGEIL alone. Further, as per clause no.18 of Ex.C1, in case the replacement of the entire unit is being made, the same model shall be replaced and in the event such model has been discontinued, it shall be replaced with the model equivalent as deemed by LGEIL. As the model of the LED in question has gone out of production and stocks and as such, in view of clause no.18 of Ex.C1, OP liable to provide in replacement the equivalent model as deemed by LGEIL equivalent to the model under replacement. That offer has been submitted through Ex.C8 and as such, non acceptance of that offer by the complainant shows that he is adamant in not accepting the due offer, despite the fact that he has failed to prove the specific technical defects in the LED in question. After going through the terms of the warranty card Ex.C1, it is made out that liability is for repair of the LED in question by way of replacement of the faulty parts, but liability of replacement of the product is as and when the purchased product became un-repairable. Offer through Ex.C8 is submitted by OP in term of clause no.18 of Ex.C1 and complainant failed to establish as to in what way the features of alternate offered LED are inferior to the features of the purchased LED and as such, submission of Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate has no force that the complainant can refuse to accept the alternate model.Rather offer of alternate model of LED with almost equivalent price made genuinely as discussed above and as such, liability of OP, being the service centre is to replace the defective LED in question with new one as per offer given through Ex.C8 only. Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Advocate has placed reliance    on case law titled as Krishanpal Singh vs. Tata Motors Limited and others-2014(3)CLT-177(N.C.) for arguing that as the T.V. in question repeatedly taken for service centre for repairs and as such, inference of manufacturing defect must be drawn, particularly when Op failed to discharge the burden of manufacturing defect. That submission of counsel for complainant has no force because there is nothing on record to suggest as to how many times, the LED in question was taken to the service centre. Rather in para no.3 of the complaint, it is just mentioned that complaints through emails or otherwise were lodged with the service centre for complaining of poor quality of picture. There is nothing in the averment of the complaint to show as to when the LED in question was taken to service centre and as such, in absence of the same, it has to be held that virtually the LED in question was never taken repeatedly for repairs to the service centre. So, facts of the reported case are quite distinct than those of the facts before the case in hand. Principles of natural justice demand that as and when LED in question to be replaced with new one as per offered statement through Ex.C8, then complainant must surrender the defective LED to OP at the same time. Warranty of replaced LED TV will continue for unexpired period as per clause no.18 of    Ex.C1. Complainant suffered because he failed to enjoy the due picture quality and features of the purchased LED and as such, compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will replace the defective LED TV in question with new one as per offer given through Ex. C8, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, complainant will have to surrender the defective LED in question to OP at the same time as and when he gets new one in replacement. The warranty of the replaced LED will continue for the unexpired period. Compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Op. Payment of litigation expenses and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Karnail Singh)                                  (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                              President                         Announced in Open Forum

Dated:01.09.2016

Gobind Sharma.