Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 179
Instituted on : 18.03.2020
Decided on : 27.03.2024
Dharampal s/o Sh. Darya Singh R/o VPO BhainiSurjan(116) Tehsil Meham District Rohtak, Haryana.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Sharp Service Centre, Sivam Refraction, Prem Nagar Chowk, Near Saini Girls School NearDr.KamleshPhougat, Rohtak-124001.
- Reliance Digital property no.1015 A & 1018, Ward no.22, Minar Party Hall, Near Mansrover Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
- Reliance Retail Limited, 3rd Floor, Court House, LT Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai-400002(Registered office).
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Yogender Singh, Advocate for the opposite party No.2 & 3.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he purchased an LED TV model no.LC-40LE380X from the opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 30.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.32990/- withtwo year warranty. . The alleged TV worked only for 1½ years and thereafter it started shut down automatically after working for half an hour. It was showing green-red line after restarting the same and automatically shut down. The complainant complained the same at the toll free number of the company and the official of opposite party No.1 visited the house of complainant on 26.01.2020 and told that there was software problem in the alleged TV and taken away the TV with him . The same was handed over to the complainant on 01.02.2020 and it again started giving problem on 02.02.2020. Complainant made so many complaints on the telephone no,. 18008891044 of the opposite party no.1 on dated 10.02.2020, 12.02.20202 and twice on 06.03.2020. Complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party no.1 demanded repair charges from the complainant whereas the same was within warranty period. Despite repeated requests of the complainant, his TV was not repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. The act and conductof the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed torefund the price of LED Rs.32990 alongwithcompensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.11.2022 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 & 3in their reply has submitted thatopposite party No.2 is store operated by M/s Reliance Retail Limited a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, from where the complainant purchased the product & opposite party No.3 is the registered office of the company and has no role in this complaint. Opposite party No.1 is the Service Centre of manufacturer of the product. There is no direct or indirect relation between the opposite party No.1, 2 & 3 as they are separate legal entities. Thus, this complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.2 & 3 and it should be removed from the array of parties from the present complaint. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 21.04.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 05.09.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.In the present case the date of purchase of LED is 30.04.2018. The alleged TV became defective within warranty period and the complainant contacted the respondent no.1 for the repair of his LED TV but the same was not repaired properly with the satisfaction of the complainant. Moreover they demanded a sum of Rs.20000/- for the repair of LED TV. The product has been purchased from the respondent no.2 and the head office of the respondent no.2 is respondent no.3. We have minutely perused the document Ex.C1 through which the product has been purchased from the respondent no.2. Another documentEx.C2i.e. warranty card is also placed on record. Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 are the messages received from the opposite parties against the complaints made by the complainant for repair of his TV. In the reply of the complaint respondent no.2 & 3 has submitted that complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the product i.e. Sharp as necessary party. It has been further submitted that the opposite party no.2 & 3 are merely performa defendants. Opposite party No.2 is only a seller and the manufacturer is sharp who has not been impleaded as party. As per our opinion respondent no.2 & 3 failed to place on record the address of the manufacturer either in their written statement or in affidavit. We have also minutely perused the bill Ex.C1. In this bill detail of manufacturer or service centre has not been mentioned anywhere. It is the prime duty of the retailer to mention the address of the manufacturer in the bill or in the warranty card. It is also the duty of the retailer to supply the information about the service centre of the product which has been sold by them. In this case the address of the service centre i.e. respondent no.1 is mentioned but respondent no.1 was proceeded against exparte. In the absence of necessary information regarding the manufacturer there was no option with the complainant to implead the retailer as a necessary party. As such opposite party no.2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.However, law cited by ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 2000(10)SCC654 in case titled Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Another Vs. N.Siva Kumar and another is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties No.2 & 3 jointly & severally to refund the price of TV i.e. Rs.32990/-(Rupees thirty two thousand nine hundred and ninety only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.03.2020 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However opposite party No.2 & 3 are at liberty to recover the alleged amount from the manufacturer.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
