Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/313

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatic Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Kalyan Adv.

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:313 dated 02.07.2019                    

                                     Date of decision: 02.08.2022.

Gurpreet Singh s/o Late Sh.Kuldeep Singh r/o House No.325, G.K.Vihar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

 

1.M/s Micromax Informatic Limited, 288A, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon-122015(Haryana) through its Director/Authorized Person.

 

2.Micromax Service Centre CE-Anant Shree Services, 19-K, L.G.F. Opposite PAU Gate No.1, Ferozepur Road, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

3.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Gram, Ludhiana through its XEN.                                                                                                                                                …..Opposite parties

 

     Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

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

For OP1 and OP2          :         Exparte

For OP3                         :         Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Micromax LED Television bearing HSN Code 8578, Set Sr.No.00303B874201934 and Model No.40Z1107HD from Bansal Electric Store, near Talwandi Gate, Raikot (Ludhiana) vide invoice No.806 dated 23.03.2018 for Rs.21,500/-. The representative of OP1 and OP2 installed the LED Television in the premises of the complainant. OP1 gave a warranty of one year on the product and also gave extended warranty of 2 years on extra payment vide EPU No.21186422 dated 24.03.2018. Thus, there was a total warranty of three years for service, repair and replacement of defective parts. On 01.03.2019 as the complainant tried to switch on the LED Television, it did not receive the power and thus stopped functioning. The complainant lodged the complaint with the customer care of the OPs on 02.03.2019. The representative of OP2 visited the house of the complainant on 04.03.2019 and inspected the LED television and found that one part of the main board was defective which needed replacement. The said representative told the complainant that the part would be replaced against payment because the same has already been replaced once during the warranty period. However, at the time of sale of the LED television and giving extended warranty, this fact was not disclosed to the complainant by the OPs. Finding no alternative, the complainant requested the representative of the OP2 to replace the defective part of the LED television. The representative of the OP2 generated the job sheet dated 04.03.2019 and told the complainant that the company would be asked to send the required part and it would take about a week for the receipt of the part from the company. On 16.03.2019, the representative of OP2 again visited the house of the complainant to replace the defective part received from the company. However, when the representative of the OP2 switched on the LED television after replacement of the part, the screen of the LED started fluctuating. The representative of the OP2 failed to repair the said defect.

2.                It is further alleged in the complaint that on 18.03.2019 the representative of the OP2 took in possession the LED television from the complainant under job sheet No.J.S.4209 and till date the same is in possession of the OP2. On 26.04.2019, the complainant received an email from the OP1 that his earlier job sheet was cancelled by the OP2 and a new job sheet had been generated. OP1 and OP2 further started alleging that the LED television was burnt due to fluctuation in the electricity supply. As a result, the complainant impleaded PSPCL as OP3 in this case. Thereafter, the complainant has been approaching the OPs many times but to no avail. On 09.04.2019, the representative of the OP2 called the complainant and told that the defective LED television was not repairable and agreed to replace the same with a new one on payment of Rs.12,000/-. The said demand of Rs.12,000/- is totally illegal and unjustified. OP1 and OP2 are bound either to remove the defects in the LED television or to replace the same as the product is still within the warranty period. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end,  it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.21,500/- being the cost of LED set along with interest @24% per annum or in the alternative replace the same with a new one free of costs. It has further been requested that the OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.

3.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.09.2019.

4.                However, OP3, who was impleaded subsequently as a party in this case, has resisted the complaint. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OP3. According to the OP3, no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant with the OP3 alleging that electricity supply in his premises was fluctuating or that same should be checked on 01.03.2019. In fact, OP1 and OP2 have misguided the complainant in order to escape from their own liability. OP3 has further pleaded that on 01.03.2019, no complaint was received from the complainant or his adjoining houses regarding fluctuation in voltage. Therefore, question of LED television having been damaged due to fluctuation in voltage stands ruled out. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                In evidence, complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, OP3 submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.M.P.Singh, Additional S.E. of OP3 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and OP3 and have also gone through the record.

8.                So far as the OP3 is concerned, the complainant has failed to prove on record any tangible evidence to prove that the LED television was damaged due to fluctuation of load or voltage in the house of complainant on 01.03.2019 nor any expert witness has been examined by the complainant to prove this fact. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, no definite conclusion has arrived at that the LED television was damaged due to load or voltage fluctuation. In these circumstances, in our considered view, no liability can be fastened on OP3.

9.                As regards OP1 and OP2, the entire evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted as since OP1 and OP2 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte and no written statement was filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2 to controvert the averments made in the complaint. It is the definite case of the complainant in the complaint as well as in the supporting affidavit Ex.CA that the product carried extended warranty upto 22.03.2021 as is evident from the communication Ex.C13. It has also been alleged by the complainant in the affidavit Ex.CA that on 01.03.2019 the LED television stopped working following which he lodged a complaint with the OPs and a representative of OP2 visited and checked the product and found that some defective part of the LED television was required to be replaced. It has further stated in the affidavit Ex.CA that on 16.03.2019, the representative of the OP2 replaced the defective part but despite that the LED television was not functioning properly and the engineer of OP2 failed to restore the LED television to a proper working condition. Subsequently on 18.03.2019, the OP2 took the LED television away vide job sheet No.J.S.4209 and till date the same has not been returned to the complainant after repair.

10.              The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted as against the OP1 and OP2. Since the product was under a valid warranty, the OP1 and OP2 were bound to repair the same at their own costs and if the product has become irreparable, the OP1 and OP2 were bound to replace the same or refund the cost value of the product to the complainant. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OP1 and OP2 are directed to return the LED television in question in a proper working condition after due repair within a period of one month from today or in the alternative, they would replace the same with a new LED television or they would return the cost price of Rs.21,500/- to the complainant along with composite costs of Rs.5,000/-.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed as against OP1 and OP2 only with an order that they will return the LED television in question to the complainant in a proper working condition after due repair within a period of one month from today or in the alternative, they will replace the defective LED television with a new LED television of same size or they will return the cost price of Rs.21,500/- to the complainant. Further, OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally shall pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, complaint as against OP3 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.08.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma