BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 Date of Institution: 30.12.2014
Date of Decision: 06.07.2015
Sabarjit Singh, Son of Nirbhai Singh, Resident of V.P.O. Sulhani, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
- M/S Adesh Electronics, Main Bazar, Talwandi Bhai, District Ferozepur, through its Authorized Signatory.
- L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office A 27, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, through its Authorized Signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. T.S Jatana, Advocate
For opposite parties Nos.1&2 : Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased an L.E.D 80 cm make L.G. from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.335 dated 23.12.2013 for Rs.26,400/- with one year warranty. The L.E.D. became defective on 26.11.2014. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 for removal of its defect and opposite party No.1 referred the complainant to approach the company through its toll free number 18001809999. The complainant registered his complaint on toll free number on 27.11.2014. After registration of the complaint, the engineer of opposite party No.2 visited the house of the complainant and demanded Rs.4500/- for rectifying the defect. The complainant asked the Engineer that the L.E.D. is within warranty period and requested him to rectify the defect free of cost. Despite
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //3//
repeated requests, the engineer of opposite party No.2 did not rectify the defect and returned back without rectifying the defect. Since the L.E.D is within warranty period and both the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of L.E.D free of cost. Thereafter, the complainant served a notice on 5.12.2014 through his counsel upon the opposite parties, which was duly served upon opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.2 refused to accept the same. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the L.E.D with new one. Further a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been claimed as compensation and Rs.8800/- as litigation expenses.
2 Upon notice, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their respective written replies to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the LED was sold in duly company packed condition. The warranty is given by the company and not by the dealer. The complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 that the LED in question was lying dead. The Engineer of opposite party No.2 visited the complainant for checking the LED in question and found that the main card and main power supply has been burnt due to cable
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //4//
wire connected with high voltage electricity wire and due to this the electricity came through the cable wire in the LED in question. Opposite party No.2 is not responsible in case the electric power come through cable wire in the LED in question. This was not a manufacturing defect. The job card was prepared. This was a deficiency either on the part of cable wire operator or due to negligence of the complainant himself, otherwise there was no defect in the LED in question. The Engineer of opposite party No.2 specifically stated that the complainant had to pay the payment of these two parts in case he intends to change it which he refused. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3 Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-10 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1 & 2/1 to Ex. OP-1 & 2/5 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //5//
5. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased one LED make L.G., manufactured by opposite party No.2, from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.335 dated 23.12.2013 for Rs.26,400/- with a warranty of one year. This fact is also evident from photo copy of bill
Ex.C-2 and copy of Terms and Conditions of Warranty Card Ex.C-3. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the complainant made complaint to opposite party No.2 on its toll free number regarding defect in the LED in question, upon which Engineer of opposite party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and checked the LED in question. The grievance of the complainant is that the LED in question became defective during the warranty period, but the Engineer of opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.4500/- for rectification of its defects, to which the complainant refused being within warranty, but the Engineer did not repair the LED in question despite his repeated requests. The plea of the opposite parties is that on checking, Engineer of opposite party No.2 found that the main card and main power supply had been burnt due to cable wire connected with high voltage electricity wire and due to this the electricity came through the cable wire in the LED in question and opposite party No.2 is not responsible in case the electric power come through cable wire in the LED in question.
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //6//
From the pleadings of the parties, one thing is clear that the LED in question was defective at the time of visit of the Engineer of opposite party No.2 to the premises of the complainant. In support of their version, the opposite parties placed on the file copy of Job Sheet as Ex.OP-1 & 2/5, a perusal of which reveals that in its column pertaining to Defect Reported by Engineer, remarks have been given as ‘Dead’ whereas remarks given regarding reasons of occurrence of the defect on the top right corner of the Job Sheet are not legible. Moreover, this job sheet does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The opposite parties have also placed on the file affidavit of Sushil Kumar, Sr. Engineer, LG Service Centre, Ferozepur as Ex.OP-1 & 2/3, wherein said Sushil Kumar has deposed that he prepared two job cards on two different dates, but no date of the alleged preparing of two job sheets has been mentioned in the said affidavit. Even the opposite parties have placed on the file copy of one job sheet only as Ex.OP-1 & 2/5 and copy of the alleged second job sheet has not been produced by the opposite parties. The complainant has placed on the file affidavit of one Pritpal Singh son of Sohan Singh as Ex.C-7, wherein the said Pritpal Singh has deposed that his house is adjacent to the house of complainant Sabarjit Singh; he is also a holder of cable T.V. connection; the cable wire amplifier make sharp has
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //7//
been installed on the roof of his house since January 2014 and from the said amplifier, the cable of TV wires goes to his house,
Sabarjit Singh complainant, Jawant Singh, Harpreet Singh and Jagsir Singh; all the aforesaid cable TV connections are working through Set Top boxes installed in the houses of the said persons; and that the cable TV wire never got connected with the high voltage electricity wire because there is no naked electricity wire in the nearby area as the transformer is located on the village phirni and houses of the deponent and aforesaid persons are inside the village. Copies of receipts regarding payment made the complainant and said Pritpal Singh to the Cable TV operator have been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9, respectively. The above deposition of Pritpal Singh has not been controverted by the opposite parties. Said Pritpal Singh has not been subjected to cross-examination. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on copy of job sheet Ex.OP-1 & 2/5. There is nothing on the record to establish that the defect in the LED in question occurred due to connecting of cable wire with high voltage electricity wire, as alleged by the opposite parties. However, the complainant has neither alleged nor proved that the LED in question is beyond repair. The LED in question became defective within the warranty period and as such the opposite parties
C.C. No. 490 of 2014 //8//
are liable to get it repaired free of cost. The opposite parties have failed to provide after sale service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the LED in question by replacing its defective/burnt parts without any charges and set it right in proper working condition to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as consolidated compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Arguments in this case were heard on 22.6.2015 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders be communicated to the parties. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
06.07.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
