Delhi

East Delhi

CC/270/2017

HARISH PUROHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 270/17

 

Shri Harish Purohit

S/o Late Shri P.D. Purohit

R/o H.No. A-45, 3^rd Floor

Gali No. 7, Joshi Colony

Near Samuday Bhawan

Delhi – 110 092                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. Micromax LED TV

Micromax House

90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon

Haryana – 122 015        

 

2. The Directors

Micromax House

90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon

Haryana – 122 015                                                                   

 

3. The Sales Head

Micromax House

90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon

Haryana – 122 015

 

4. Mr. Ravi Kant

Perfect Services

(Micromax Authorise Service Centre)

B-153, Gali No. 12, Mata Wali Gali

Johri Pur, Delhi – 110 094                                               …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 20.07.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 24.02.2020

Judgement Passed on: 02.03.2020

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By: Ms. Harpreeet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Harish Purohit against        M/s. Micromax LED TV (OP-1), Directors of OP-1 (OP-2), Sales Head of OP-1 (OP-3) and Mr. Ravi Kant, Perfect Services, (OP-4) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant booked a LED TV (124 cm) on 13.02.2015 through internet, under the name and style of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., which was delivered to him through M/s. Retail Service Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice dated 14.02.2015.  The complainant made the payment of Rs. 33,990/- to Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. through credit card of his friend. 

          It was stated that 10-11 months after receiving the TV, the complainant started facing problem like its light, sound effect, channels, back lights, adjustment etc. for which he immediately informed to the customer care of OP-1,2,&3.  OP-4 was sent for checking and repairing the TV, but the same was not repaired despite various communications.  The complainant wrote various mails to OPs through the company on 24.01.2016, 02.02.2016, 04.02.2016, 06.02.2016, 07.02.2016 and in November 2016, used social network such as Twitter and also sent notice by registered post on two occasions for replacement , but all in vain.

          It was also stated that OP-4 (representative of OP-1) had initially changed the parts of the LED TV, but the problem was not resolved.  Officials of OP-1 told the complainant that some parts had to be changed which were not easily available. 

It was stated that the complainant was bound to repair the said TV from his own pocket and he asked OP-4 to repair the TV on chargeable basis for which he paid Rs. 5,000/- to OP-4 in January 2017, but in March, 2017, the same problem occurred which was repaired by OP-4.  In April, 2017, LED gone blank for which OP-4 again asked for Rs. 5,000/- for repairing and told that the period had lapsed regarding the care and service of said LED TV and they can’t do anything for the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to all OPs to replace the LED TV with a new one or to pay Rs. 94,090/-; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment; Rs. 5,100/- towards litigation charges and Rs. 5,000/- as repairing charges. 

3.       In the reply, filed on behalf of OP-1,2&3, they have taken various pleas such as there was no defect/manufacturing defect in the LED TV.  They have relied on the various judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC for the same such as Eid Parry (India) Ltd. vs., Baby Benjamin Thushara, (1992) CPJ 279 (NC), according to which the LED TV in question  ought to be mandatorily referred to appropriate testing laboratories on the expense of complainant.  In the absence of any test report, it may be assumed that LED TV did not have any defect/manufacturing defect.

          It was stated that defect in LED TV was solely due to mishandling by the complainant.  The complainant was duly informed that under the warranty terms and conditions, he had to bear cost of repair when damage was not covered under warranty, however, complainant refused to pay the legible repairing costs and filed present complaint. 

It was further submitted that no complaint of any defect in LED TV was lodged by the complainant as he never approached OP or its authorized service centre with respect to any defect in LED TV.  Other facts have also been denied.

Notice of OP-4 was taken Dasti, by the complainant.  It was stated that OP-4 refused to accept the notice.  As OP-4 refused to accept the notice, he was deemed to have been served.  None have appeared on behalf of OP-4.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.       Complainant have filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1,2,&3, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated and improvised the facts which have been  stated in the complaint.  He has given the date of events.  He has also got exhibited copy of invoice (Annex. E1), copy of warranty card (Annex. E2), copy of email dated 24.01.2016 (Annex. E3), copy of notice dated 01.02.2016 alongwith postal receipt and its reply (Annex. E4), emails dated 02.02.2016, 04.02.2016, 06.02.2016, 07.02.2016 and 12.03.2016 (Annex. E5 to E8), copy of detailed communication (Annex. E12 & E16), copy of final notice and postal receipt (Annex, E17) and copy of whatsapp screen short and mails to OP-4 (Annex. E18).

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Ankit Aggarwal, Authorized Representative of OP, who have also deposed on affidavit.   He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS.  He has got exhibited copy of letter of authority dated 02.07.2018 (Ex.CW-1/1) and copy of warranty terms and conditions (Ex.CW-1/2).

6.       We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record as none have appeared on behalf of OP-1,2,&3 to argue.  The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the product manufactured by OP.  If we look at the emails dated 02.02.2016, 04.02.2016, 06.02.2016, 07.02.2016 and 12.03.2016 where the complainant has written that the LED was not working, there is no reason to doubt the mails written by the complainant. 

          As far as the defence of OP is concerned that there was no defect in LED or the problem, if any, was due to mishandling of the LED by the complainant.  If we look at the email dated 21.11.2016 from customer care to the complainant and also email dated 08.11.2016, where it has been written “we would like to inform you that your complaint has been registered with us via job sheet no. DEL-2./11/16-1194695 & DEL-081116-1170489 respectively.  Thus, the adverse inference is to be drawn against OP as they chose not to file job sheets, which could have given the clear picture of the defects in the LED.

It is seen that the complainant was regularly registering complaints with OP, through different modes.  It is observed that the complainant had been constantly following up with OP for repair of LED, while it was under warranty.  The complaint was attended by engineers of OP after constant follow up and even then the LED was not working, complainant has also paid Rs. 5,000/- for repairs as evident from Annex.  E-8. 

          Since, there was some defects in the LED, manufactured by OP which could not be repaired.  Therefore, we direct OP to replace the LED with fresh warranty on the replaced product.  We also award Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.  This order be complied within a period of 30 days.    

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                 Member    

 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President