DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 110
Date of Institution : 20.08.2015
Date of Decision : 05.01.2016
Rakesh Sharma aged 36 years S/o Parkash Sharma, R/o street # 2, Partap Nagar, Kot Kapura, District Faridkot.
.....Complainant
Versus
Milap Electric Store, Railway Road Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Proprietor.
......Ops
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.
Smt. Parampal Kaur, Member,
Sh. P. Singla, Member.
Present: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Ld. Counsel for Complainant,
Sh. Anil Chawla, Ld. Counsel for OPs
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs 85,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs 5,500/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased an LCD TV of LG Company vide bill no 3177 dt 26.12.2014 for Rs 24,800/-. Payment was made in cash. After installation of same by mechanic of OP, said LCD TV did not work properly and on seeing the guarantee receipt and voucher, it came to the notice of mechanic and complainant that said LCD TV had a different serial number 409PLLQ179888, which was not registered with LG Company for guarantee being false and fabricated serial number. Thereafter, complainant served legal notice dt 7.07.2015 to OP, but OP did not give any reply, rather threatened complainant on phone being service partner of LG from Sri Muktsar Sahib. OP deliberately sold duplicate LCD TV without any valid license from concerned authority and OP is running illegal business. In this way, OP committed grave negligence in service and there was misrepresentation by OP, which caused harassment, mental tension and financial loss to complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused much inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to OPs to pay Rs 85,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs 5,500/-as cost of litigation besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.08.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is bad on account of non joinder of necessary party as manufacturer of LCD TV i.e LG Electronic India Pvt Ltd, which is a necessary party, has not been impleaded as party and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that complainant has filed this complaint mischievously to harm and harass the OP. It is brought before the Forum that complainant came to the shop of OPs for purchasing an LCD, but on that day, sealed pack was not available in his shop. OP asked complainant to come on next day, but complainant was adamant to purchase the LCD on same day on pretext that there was some function at his house and therefore he required LCD on same day and he asked OP to give the LCD piece out of two pieces which were being displayed at his shop at that time and as per desire of complainant, OP packed the LCD, which was displayed on his shop, but inadvertently the same was packed in the box of another LCD bearing Sr 409 PLNB179895 and same was written on the bill from the box, but while installing the LCD at the house of complainant, the mechanic told about the mistake to complainant and asked him to get corrected the serial number on the bill, but the complainant did not care to get corrected the number on bill and after five-six months, complainant approached OP and asked him to replace the LCD with some new one of big screen by taking the margin money. Since, there was no exchange offer of the company, so OP showed inability to accept the offer of complainant and only to pressurise the answering OP, complainant has filed the present complaint. However, on merits, OPs reiterated the same submissions as taken in preliminary objections and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering OP.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-6 and then, closed the evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Suresh Kumar Proprietor Ex OP-1 and documents Ex Op-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that on 26.12.2014 the complainant purchased a LCD TV manufactured by LG company from OPs for Rs.24,800/-. OP issued bill regarding it, on the bill the OP duly written model number and Serial number of the LCD which was written as a model number 32LB563 Sr. No.409PLNB179895 when the mechanic installed this LCD in the house of the complainant, it reveals that the LCD at its back panel had a different serial number as 409PLLQ179888 whereas the box containing the LCD has a different Serial number. Even the LG company manufacturer of the LCD has not registered the product for guarantee being false and fabricated serial number. The OPs deliberately sold a duplicate LCD to complainant which is not manufacture by LG Company and he has no valid license or authority to sale the product of LG Company. He is running wrong business and cheating the customer. He requested the OPs to change his LCD and also for compensation and damages but the OP did not change the LCD, rather they abused and threaten the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice to OPs on 07.07.2015 but they did not give any reply to this notice. Copy of the bill is Ex C-2. Copy of the Serial number at the back of LCD is Ex C-3. Copy of the notice is Ex C-4. All these acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Due to these wrong acts of the OPs, the complainant suffered great metal harassment. The complainant is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.85,000/- due to negligence in service while selling the duplicate LCD to the complainant by the Ops. He prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
9. To controvert, the arguments of the complainants, Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that the present complaint is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary party, as LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. who is manufacture of LCD TV in dispute is necessary party and in their absence it cannot be decided that the LCD in dispute is genuine product of the company or not. The complainant filed this complaint by suppressing the true and material facts to harass the OP. The real facts are that the complainant came to the shop of the OP for purchase of the LCD but at that time there was no packed LCD was available on the shop of OP and he asked to complainant to come on the next date and they will brought the sealed pack from Godown. But the complainant was adamant to purchase the LCD on the day under the pretext that there is some function at his house and he required the LCD on the same day and he requested to give LCD out of the 2 pieces which were being displayed at the shop and on the request of the complainant OP packed the LCD out of which were displayed in their shop. At the time of packing inadvertently the LCD packed in the box of another LCD. The LCD sold to complainant bearing sr. No. 409PLLQ179888 but it was packed in the box bearing Sr.No.409PLNB179895 and inadvertently on the bill same serial number from the box was written by OP. This fact came into the knowledge when mechanic of the OP was installing the LCD at the house of the complainant and the mechanic at that time told about this mistake to complainant and asked him to get correct the serial number on the bill but complainant did not care about it and not get corrected on the bill. Both the LCDs are manufactured by LG Company and are genuine product of the company. Both LCDs were supplied by the company to the OPs on the same lot and packing list in 07.10.2014.Copy of the bill issued by LG company and list of articles supplied by that bill dated 07.10.2014 are Ex OP-3 & OP-4 respectively. Transport voucher vide which these articles were delivered to OP as Ex OP-2. In the list of articles both LCDs bearing Sr. No 409PLLQ179888 and Sr. No.409PLNB179895 are mentioned in the list. It is wrong that the OPs sold duplicate LCDs to the complainant, rather this is genuine one supplied by the company to OP-1. It is only that inadvertently LCD is packed in another LCDs box and by over slightness the serial number on bill was written from the box. The Ops requested to complainant to get corrected the serial number on the bill immediately when it came to their knowledge but he did not care about it and did not approach the OPs for necessary endorsement on the bill. The complainant approached to OPs only after six months of the sale of LCDs and demanded to replace the LCD with some new LCD of higher model and bigger size and pressurise them to adjust the entire price of old LCD in the price of new LCD and to take only the difference of the price of the LCDs but OP showed their inability to accept the offer of the complainant as there is no policy of the complainant to exchange the LCD on these terms and they refused to accept his unreasonable request and only on this he filed the present complaint to harass the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
10. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the evidence led by the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the LCD TV from OP on 26.12.2014 and OP duly issued the bill of LCD and mentioned the serial number on it. At the time of installation of LCD in his house it transpired that LCD bearing different serial number from which was written on bill and box of LCD. Due to this fact LG Company who is manufacturer of this LCD did not registered the product for guarantee. The OPs sold duplicate LCD which is not manufactured by LG Company to complainant. In reply OP argued that when complainant came to purchase LCD on their shop they have no packed LCD at their shop and on the request of complainant they deliver a LCD out of 2 LCDs which were displayed in the shop of OP and at the time of packing of LCD inadvertently the LCD packed in the box of another LCD and inadvertently they written serial number on the bill from box of the LCD and when it came to knowledge of OP at the time of installing the LCD at home of the complainant. They requested to complainant to get the serial number corrected on the bill but he did not come up for the same and not bother about it. The LCD sold by them to complainant is a genuine product of the LG Company. In support they produce copy of bill and list of the articles issued by LG Company to OPs which reflects the serial number of both LCDs i.e. one which is delivered to complainant and another which is written on the bill and on box.
11. We come to the conclusion that both the LCDs bearing Sr. No 409PLLQ179888 and Sr. No.409PLNB179895 are genuine product of LG Company and supplied by company to OP in same lot. However it is negligence on the part of OPs that they packed the LCD in the box of another LCD and also mentioned the serial number of another LCD on the bill of complainant. This amounts to gross negligence on the part of the OPs.
12. In the light of above discussion, the complaint in hand is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to make necessary correction and endorsement in the serial number of LCD in the bill issued by them to complainant. The OPs are burdened to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/-as litigation expenses to the complainant. OPs directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum:
Dated: 05.01.2016
Member Member President
(P Singla) (Parampal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
