BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.181 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 24.04.2018

      Date of Decision:16.06.2022

Vinod Kumar Lambardar aged about 48 years son of Sh. Mohan Lal resident of Village Sangal Sohal, P. O. Mand, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Bajaj Appliances Ltd., 416, Tower-2, Pearls Omaxe Netaji           Subhash Palace, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Through its Managing Director/General Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2.       Maheshwari Manufacturing Tools Co., H. O.:-Milap Road,           Jalandhar City, through its Partner/Proprietor/Authorized    Signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj                (President)

                     Smt. Jyotsna                               (Member)

                     Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon         (Member)    

Present:        Sh. Vijay Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                     OP No.1 exparte.

                     Sh. Parshotam S. Kapoor, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                  The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that in the month of October 2017 there was Diwali offer pamphlets being distributed by the OP No.2, so the complainant desired to purchase a BTL Bajaja LED Smart TV 58” from the showroom of the OP No.2 vide Delivery Challan No.8109 dated 14.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.47,000/- and made the payment in cash with the assurance that the product was very good. In the month of November 2017 there was some technical defect in the said purchased LED and the issue was reported to the OP No.1 which was solved by the representative of the OP No.1 through their service engineer at the residence of the complainant. The LED which was purchased by the complainant was again not functioning properly and a complaint was made on the Toll Free no.1800110811 of the company i.e. OP No.1 on 02.02.2018 vide complaint no.1700631 and on the mobile number of the company 9599384631, but on the part of the OP No.1, the LED was not repaired inspite of the repeated request by the complainant. Thereafter, on 15.02.2018 a complaint was again made vide complaint no.1700697 and also made a contact with OP No.1 on their mobile No.98724-88002. But the complaint of the complainant was not solved by the OPs. Since the date of the complaint, the LED is not working and it has been learnt that there is a manufacturing defect in the LED purchased by the complainant. The complainant spent a huge amount with the hope that the product will be very good as the same was told by the OP No.2 at the time of its purchase and also stated that the service centre of the company is also located in the city itself and the services of the company are very satisfactory as the engineers are very competent and well qualified. The OP also issued the warranty card of the LED in question for the period of three years. The complainant so many times visited the showroom of the OP No.2 but they have not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant nor replaced the LED with a new one to the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective LED Smart TV with a brand new Set of same model or to refund the full amount of the bill i.e. Rs.47,000/- alongwith interest @ 4% per annum from the date of its purchase till the date of actual realization of the amount. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, physical harassment, and financial loss caused to the complainant and OPs be also directed to pay litigation expenses which this Commission deems fit.

2.                  Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is further averred that complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. The OP is not liable to pay single penny to the complainant. As per the warranty card given to complainant is clearly stated that “all disputes with regard to this extended warranty offer terms, conditions, standard warranty card, etc. will be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of courts at Delhi only”. It is further averred that the complainant with malafide intentions has instituted the present complaint to defame the OP and to grab the money from the OP No.1. The instant matter is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. The intentions of the complainant are fraudulent and the present matter instituted is an attempt to over reach the jurisdiction of this Commission by practicing fraud and misrepresentations and complainant is guilty of concealment of facts and making false statements before this Commission. On merits, the OP No.1 only stated that the complainant has not filed the complaint within the jurisdiction and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                  OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Commission. The complainant has dragged into frivolous and vexatious litigation. The complainant is stopped by his act and conduct to bring the complaint against the answering OP No.2. The complainant cannot be permitted to misuse process of law for extracting the money from answering OP No.2 by misrepresentation and on false ground. The complaint is based on frail facts and legally infirm. The complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.2. There is no deficiency, any fault imperfection or short coming committed by the OP No.2 nor has any such allegations been imputed against OP No.2. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the BTL Bajaj LED Smart TV by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                  Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 filed by the complainant.

5.                  In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

6.                After availing so many opportunities and one with cost, the OP No.1 failed to produce his evidence and ultimately, the OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte. The OP No.2 gave remarks on its written statement that no document is to be filed since complainant has already filed Invoice of purchase item.

7.                  We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

8.                  It has been proved by the complainant that he had purchased BTL Bajaj LED Smart TV 58” from the OP No.2 on 14.10.2017, vide Ex.C-1 and Ex.C2, which are delivery challan and tax invoice respectively. Ex.C-3 is the warranty card showing the one year warranty on LED TV and extended warranty or additional two years warranty over the one year warranty. As per submission of the complainant, in the month of November 2017 there was some technical defect in the LED, but the same was solved by the representative of the OP No.1 through their service engineer, but again in the month of February, 2018 the LED was not functioning properly and on 15.02.2018, the complaint was made, but the same was not solved by the OPs. This fact has been denied by the OPs that there was any technical defect. The only objection taken by OP No.1 is that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as as per the warranty card annexed with the written statement, this Commission has no jurisdiction, but this contention is not tenable. As per the warranty card attached with the written statement, which is Annexure-1, there is a reference that all the disputes with regard to this extended warranty of terms, conditions, standard warranty card, etc. will be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of courts at Delhi only, but if we go through Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, then it is clear that though there has been mentioned that three years warranty, but in the bottom of the bill, it has specifically been mentioned that all disputes subject to the Jalandhar jurisdiction only. Similarly as per Ex.C-3, there is no mention of the fact that the disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction. The perusal of the Ex.C-3 shows that two years extended warranty has been given to the complainant over and above existing one year warranty on LED TV. As per Annexure-1 referred by the OP, the dispute relating to extended warranty are having jurisdiction at Delhi and not the dispute having regular warranty. The complainant purchased the LED in the month of October 2017, which started giving trouble to the complainant in the month of November 2017 and the issue was resolved, but again it started giving problem in the month of February 2018, meaning thereby that the problem occurred within one month and then within three months of the purchase of the LED TV, which was within one year of regular warranty and not extended warranty, therefore the contention raised by the OP regarding jurisdiction is not maintainable.

9.                  As per Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 the dispute are having jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The complainant was never made aware of any terms and conditions of extended warranty having jurisdiction at Delhi as alleged by the OPs, which is not in the warranty card Ex.C-3. So, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the OP is not tenable. Moreso, the OPs have not proved that this fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant as they are not the seller rather they are the manufacturers. So, from all the angles the case of the complainant is proved and the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

10.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the amount of the LED TV i.e. Rs.47,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of its purchase till its realization and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

16.06.2022         Member                   Member            President