Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/84/2019

M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Sumit Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Grover, Arjun Grover & Pooja R Sharma Adv.

27 May 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	84 of 2019
Date of Institution	24.04.2019
Date of Decision	27.05.2019

1.  M/s LG Electronics India Private Limited having office at : A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi – 110017.

2.  Customer Care LG Electronics Private Limited, having office at : A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi – 110017.

Both appellants No.1 & 2 through their Branch Service Manager, Sh.Amit Rathore having office at : Plot No.194-195, 2^nd Floor, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.    

                     ..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.

                           Versus

1.     Sumit Kumar son of Sh.Krishan Kumar, H.No.180, Mamta Enclave, Village Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.  

                    ... Respondent No.1/Complainant.

2.     M/s Meena Electronics, Shop No.592, Main Market, Hallomajra, Chandigarh, UT.

                        .... Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER                      

                SH.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Arjun Grover, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Krishan Kumar, father of Sh.Sumit Kumar, respondent No.1/complainant.

None for respondent No.2 – M/s Meena Electronics.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.04.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.545 of 2018, which reads as under :-

“10]      Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to replace the panel of the LED TV in question with new one, free of cost, making it fully functional. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a composite amount of Rs.8000/- towards compensation for causing harassment to the complainant as well as litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from the above relief.”

   

2.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

“ The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a LG Brand LED Smart TV Sr.No.606 through Opposite Party No.2 on 02.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.27,000/- against bill and it was carrying two years warranty.   It is averred that in Feb., 2018, the said TV  was found to be not working, which was reported to the OPs, but the Technician as well as Customer Care of Opposite Parties refused to repair or replace the LED TV in question stating it to be as misused operation and not covered under warranty. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with LG Company, which too demanded an amount of Rs.9000/- to solve the complaint.  It is also averred that there is no any misuse of operation of TV by the complainant and it is also covered in the extended warranty as per condition No.6 of the warranty card.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“2]       The OPs No.1 & 3 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the product in question is having One year comprehensive warranty and One year extended warranty (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that the complainant for the first time contacted the OP Company regarding the issue on 7.9.2018 i.e. after One year & 11 months, whereupon the Service Engineer was sent, who diagnosed that the panel of the LED is physically damaged/broken.  It is also stated that the Service Engineer apprised the complainant that since the panel is broken, the same is not covered under the warranty and the same would be repaired/replaced on chargeable basis and the estimate was also given to the complainant, but the complainant insisted on free of cost repair/replacement (Ann.R-2 collectively).  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.”  

4.             Opposite Party No.2 did not appear, despite service. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.11.2018. 

5.              The complainant, filed replication to the written statement of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. 

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and Sh.Krishan Kumar, father of respondent No.1/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10.           Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 has submitted at the time of arguments that the Forum  has failed to appreciate the fact that the Service Engineer, namely, Mr.Arif Hussain visited the place of the complainant on 07.09.2018 on receipt of call from him and after inspection, it was diagnosed that the glass panel is broken/cracked. Further, the service engineer also gave an expert opinion by way of Engineer’s Certificate with regard to the same (Annexure A-8). He further submitted that the Forum failed to appreciate the fact that point No.15 of the warranty policy categorically states that “in case of any damage to the product/customer/abuse/repairs by an unauthorised personnel’s/misuse detected by the authorized service centre personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable.....” However, the Forum without appreciating the glass panel was broken, wrongly held the appellant(s) guilty even without an iota of evidence recorded against them. He further submitted that the warranty only covers the defect and not the physical damage to the product. He further submitted that the said product has been physically damaged and is not covered under the warranty policy. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.  

11.           On the other hand, Sh.Krishan Kumar, father of respondent No.1/complainant stated that the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal   filed  by  Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.

12.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

13.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. Annexure C-1 is a copy of bill dated 02.10.2016. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased LG LED Smart TV from M/s Meena Electronics – Opposite Party No.2 on 02.10.2016 in the sum of Rs.27,000/-. The complainant also placed on record extended warranty terms and conditions (at backside of page No.9 of the Forum file), in which, Clause No.5 reads thus :-

“5. The Panel/Module of LED TV shall be repaired or replaced during the extended warranty period as per the company policy.  The Company decision shall be final as per the circumstances.  In the event of non availability of original spares the company may offer, as per company policy, the depreciated value of the product.”

In view of aforesaid clause, it is crystal clear that in case of any damage to the panel/module of the LED TV that shall be repaired or replaced, as per the company policy. The main allegation of the appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 is that the said TV was checked by Service Engineer, who visited on 07.09.2018 and after inspection, it was found that ‘glass panel broken/cracked’, as such, physical damage is not covered under the policy, as per point No.15 of the warranty policy and it can only be replaced on cost basis. The said allegation of the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 is not genuine, at all and the same stands rejected because at the time of arguments i.e. on 27.05.2019, LED TV was produced before the Court and after examination, it was found that “there does not appear to be any outside impact. Breaking of glass panel is not visible from outside.” So, it is crystal clear that the appellants are at fault for not replacing the panel, free of charge, as per Clause 5 of the extended terms and conditions of the policy, in question.

14.           For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

15.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

27.05.2019.                                                                                        

                                     

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH [RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                               

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

 

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

rb