Haryana

Karnal

CC/587/2020

Gurjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

LLOYD Electric And Engineering Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shelender Panchal

28 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 587 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.18.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:28.11.2022

 

Gurjeet Singh age 27 years son of Mahinder Singh, resident of house no.980/3, Shiv Colony, Kaithal Road, Karnal. Aadhar card no.239061276144.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Lloyd Electric an Engineering Ltd. Plot no.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019.

 

2.     M/s Guru Nanak Air Tech Pvt. Ltd. 13 Mangal Singh Market, near New Suvidha Showroom, Karnal through its proprietor.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Subodh Gupta, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased Lloyd LED, L40FIK from the OP no.2 on 16.12.2016, vide invoice no.1869 dated 16.10.2016. The warranty of said LED is for five years. After sometimes of its purchase, the problem created in the screen penal which is manufacturing fault and complainant contacted to OP no.2 and OP no.2 sent the complainant to OP no.1 and OP no.1 demanded Rs.12965/- from the complainant whereas the said LED is within warranty period. Thereafter, complainant visited the OP no.1 several times and narrated about the fault of LED but OP no.1 instead of removing the fault of LED threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant made complaint to the OPs, vide complaint no.190000023176 dated 17.10.2020, 2411207247551 dated 24.11.2020 and 0812207429619 dated 08.12.2020 but OPs did not solve the problem of LED of the complainant knowingly and willfully. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that LED in question purchased by the complainant is a 2016 model as purchased on 16.10.2016 which has now become obsolete and no longer in production. The complainant has used the product for about 4 years. Further, the product was purchased in the year 2016 whereas the first complaint call was registered by the complainant on 17.10.2020 i.e. after about 4 years hence any manufacturing defect is ruled out. It is further pleaded that in case the OP is able to procure the spare part (panel) of the impugned TV, OP company will replace it in warranty. However, in case the OP company is not able to procure the panel, OP company has no choice but to resolve the issue of the complainant by offering an equivalent/upgraded model on payment of difference price based on the depreciation policy as per warranty terms as the complainant has used the product for about 4 years. It is further pleaded that technician of the complainant visited the premises of the complainant and checked the LED and found that there was LED light leakage issue and OP offered replacement of the panel. But complainant refused to replace the same and demanded for replacement of the whole LED. As per the warranty policy, warranty is for repair or replacement of parts only and not for replacement of the whole product. However, model has become obsolete and no longer in production, in order to resolve the issue. OP had offered replacement of the whole TV with an equivalent/upgraded model on payment of differential amount between market value of the new TV and depreciated value of the complainant’s old TV as ascertained by the company but complainant has refused to pay any difference amount. OP has made every efforts to resolve the issue but complainant is not ready for penal replacement and also not ready to pay any difference amount on replacement with equivalent/upgraded model. It is further pleaded that it has been held in catena of judgments that where as customer has used a product for a considerable period of time and manufacturing defect cannot be proved, manufacturer cannot be expected to replace the entire product free of cost. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 01.12.2021 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copy of tax invoice, copy of his Aadhar card and warranty registered card and closed the evidence on 10.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsh Aggarwal, Senior General Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of warranty registered card Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Today the case is fixed for compromise in Lok Adalat for settlement but OP is not ready to settle the matter and choose to argue the case.

8.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and have perused the case file carefully.

9.             As per version of complainant, he purchased LED in question from the OP no.2 with the warranty of five years. The said LED has become defective during the warranty period. Complainant approached the OPs for repair or replace of the LED in question but OPs failed to repair the same despite their best efforts. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for replacement of the defective LED as the same is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and was within warranty period and beyond repair but OPs failed to do so.

8.             To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice, copy of warranty registered card. During the course of arguments complainant has placed on file copy of extract of messages regarding lodging the complaints to OPs with regard to defective LED. It is evident from the extract of messages,  the LED in question has become defective during the warranty period and OPs have failed to resolve the problem in the LED. It was the duty of the OPs to repair or replace the LED in question within warranty period, but OPs have failed to do so. OPs have taken a plea that model purchased by the complainant now become obsolete and no longer in production and spare parts is also not available. Complainant cannot blame for that. It was the duty of the OPs, if the production becomes obsolete and spare parts is also not available with the OPs, then OPs are liable to replace the LED in question with new model.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the LED in question is having a manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.             During the course of arguments, complainant submits that now he has purchased new LED and he does not want to replace the same and wants to refund the total cost of the LED in question, alongwith litigation expenses, compensation in lieu of mental agony and harassment.

10.           Complainant has purchased the LED in question in the year, 2016 and the defect occurred in the LED in the year 2020. This fact has also been proved from the extract of messages as the complainant lodged all the complaints in the year 2020. Meaning, thereby, complainant enjoyed the LED in question near about four years. It would be justified if 25% of the total value is deducted being depreciation value of the LED in question. The value of the LED was Rs.25,500/- and after deducting 25% it has come to Rs.19,125/-. Thus, complainant is entitled for Rs.19,125/-.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 (being manufacturer) to pay Rs.19,125/- to the complainant.  Complainant is also directed to return the old LED in question alongwith accessories to the OPs. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.11.2022

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member

Sushma

Stenographer