Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/372/2020

Ranju Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Amar Electronic Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/372/2020
Date of Institution	:	16/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	02/08/2023

 

Ranju Bhatia wife of Sh. Vinay Bhatia, resident of H.No.90, Sector 11, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      M/s Amar Electronic Plaza, SCO 22, Sector 11, Panchkula, through its Partner/Proprietor.

 

2.      M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida – 201310 (Udyog Vihar), through its Managing Director.

 

3.      M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

PRESENT:	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Arjun Grover, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
		Sh. Mohit Garg, Vice Counsel for Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant had purchased one L.G LED T.V. from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of ₹37,500/- vide retail invoice dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure C-1). The LED T.V. carried two years manufacturer warranty as per warranty card Annexure C-2. Additionally, the Complainant also purchased extended warranty of three years from Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure C-3), which was over & above the warranty issued by the manufacturer from the date of purchase. During the currency of the warranty, on 09.08.2020, the LED stopped working, which defect was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 sent it’s Service Engineer who after inspection informed that a part costing around ₹4,000/- to ₹4,500/- needed to be changed and advised the Complainant to avail the benefit of extended warranty from Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, vide e-mail dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure C-4) the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and submitted all the desired documents, for doing the needful. In response whereof, Opposite Party No.3 refused to admit the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the extended warranty had expired and directed her to get the policy corrected from Opposite Party No.2 (Annexure C-6). Thereafter, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.3 to review her request, supported by requisite documents, since the extended warranty was to expire on 02.11.2020. Eventually, when nothing positive could come out, the Complainant got the LED repaired on 24.08.2020 from Opposite Party No.2 by spending an amount of ₹4248/-. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged her claim with the Opposite Party No.3 to release the aforesaid amount, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the Complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the problem in the LED had arisen after almost five years of its purchase. The primary grievance of the Complainant was against Opposite Party No.3 (from whom the Complainant purchased three years extended warranty other than the two years warranty given by the Opposite Party No.2) who failed to resolve the grievance of the Complainant. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.3 in its reply admitted that apart from two years manufacturer’s warranty, the Complainant had also purchased an extended warranty of three years from it vide extended warranty card Annexure OP3/1. When the Complainant reported her concern on 11.08.2020, she was promptly informed that her extended warranty had expired. However, on 12.08.2020, when the Complainant requested to explain the period of insurance, she was asked to drop a mail for policy correction, which she never did.  On these lines, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.
5.         The complainant has filed replication to the reply filed by Opposite Party No.3, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.3.
6.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
8.         As per the conceded case of the Complainant, on 03.11.2015, she purchased one LED T.V. (manufactured by Opposite Party No.2) from Opposite Party No.1, having two years warranty as per the company policy, after spending ₹37,500/-.  It is the case of the Complainant that apart from two years warranty aforesaid, she also purchased extended warranty of three years from the Opposite Party No.3 on the same date. However, when during the currency of the extended warranty the LED T.V. in question suffered some defect, the Opposite Party No.3 did not come forward to honour the extended warranty, due to which the Complainant had to foot the repair expenses to the tune of ₹4248/-.
9.         Per contra, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 rests the entire affair at the doors of Opposite Party No.3 maintaining that the Complainant nowhere attributed any liability towards them and it was Opposite Party No.3 who bent upon to harass the Complainant despite having purchased three years extended warranty; whereas, the Opposite Party defended itself on the ground that the Complainant had no real cause of action in her favour as she lodged the claim on 09.08.2020 i.e. almost eleven months after the expiration of the policy in question, thus, the coverage of perils under the policy seized to exist with the same.   
10.         The core question survives for consideration is whether the act of Opposite Party No.3 in not conferring the benefits of extended warranty to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.  
11.         Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in affirmative.
12.         There is no dispute about the fact that at the time of purchase of LED T.V in question i.e. on 03.11.2015, Manufacturer’s warranty of two years was provided to the Complainant, which fact is fortified from Annexure C-2 annexed with the Complaint. Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant had also purchased extended warranty of three years beyond the two years manufacturer’s warranty. To substantiate the same, he relied upon extended warranty document (Annexure C-3) and argued that this document inscribed the words “3 years on LED”. We have perused the said document and observed that it also showed the date of invoice as 03.11.2005 and manufacturer’s product warranty period as two years. Based on these documents, according to the Learned Counsel for the Complainant, the product carried the total warranty of five years from 03.11.2015 to 03.11.2020 and the Opposite Party No.3 was bound to pay the repair charges as per the extended warranty. Countering the claim of the Complainant, Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 argued that the claim of the Complainant is not maintainable, in as much as, the policy document clearly denote that the warranty was for three years w.e.f. 03.11.2016 to 02.11.2019 and as such, the issue in the LED TV which occurred on 09.08.2020 was after the expiry of the policy period for which Opposite Party No.3 by any stretch of imagination cannot be liable.
13.         However, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid limb of argument advanced by Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.3, as patently there is clinching material contradictions in the submissions made and the documents relied upon. Annexure C-3 which is a document issued by Opposite Party No.3 itself spelled the manufacturer’s product warranty period as two years from the date of invoice i.e. 03.11.2015 to 02.11.2017. However, on the contrary, in Annexure OP-3/1 a document relied upon by Opposite Party No.3, though the period of extended warranty was mentioned as three years, but the manufacturer’s product warranty period was written as one year. Apart from this, in its pleadings, Opposite Party No.3 has admitted that the Complainant also purchased an extended warranty of three years from Opposite Party No.3. Thus, it is evidently clear that the manufacturer’s warranty of two years was to expire on 02.11.2017 and thereafter, the extended warranty of three years provided by Opposite Party No.3 comes into picture which was to expire on 02.11.2020 and as such, Opposite Party No.3 was bound to honour the extended warranty for the repair and replacement of the defective parts of the LED TV in question which got defective on 09.08.2020 i.e. within the extended warranty period. Needless to mention here, that sequel to the e-mail communications of the Complainant to provide the extended warranty and to resolve the issue (Annexures C-4 & C-5), Opposite Party No.3 with a view to wriggle out of their liability vide e-mail dated 12.08.2020 (Annexure C-6) advised the Complainant to drop a mail for policy correction. This goes a long way to prove that Opposite Party No.3 knew very well that in fact a wrong policy had been issued to the Complainant and instead of correcting their mistake by doing the needful Opposite Party No.3 purposely added insult to the injury by desiring the Complainant to drop a mail for policy correction. All this leads to an irresistible conclusion that Opposite Party No.3 is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. To our mind, the Complainant fully entitled for the repair charges and Opposite Party No.3 has wrongly denied the same to her.  
14.         In the wake of above, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party Nio.3 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have redressed the grievance of the Complainant forthwith, which it miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Thus, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.3. Had, Opposite Party No.3 been vigilant in resolving the issue promptly, complainant would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Commission for seeking redressal by spending money on litigation. In this backdrop, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. However, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as such, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed qua them.
15.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.3, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.3 is directed:-

[a]    To refund a sum of Rs.4248/- to the Complainant being amount spent by her on the repair and replacement of the defective parts of the LED T.V. in question during the currency of the extended warranty.

[b]    To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to her.

[c]    To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

                The complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.3; thereafter, Opposite Party No.3 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till the same are paid, apart from compliance of directions contained in sub-para [c] above.

 

17.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

2^nd August, 2023                                            Sd/-

(PAWANJIT SINGH)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Ls