BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 318 of 2016
Date of Institution : 22.12.2016
Date of Decision : 20.12.2017.
Jaswant Bishnoi son of Shri Devi Lal, resident of V&PO Ridmalsar, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganga Nagar (Raj.).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Ganesh Radios, Main Bazar, Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its sole proprietor.
2. Toshiba India Private Limited, Corporate Office: 3rd Floor, Building No.10B, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon- 122 022.
3. Maan Electronics, Near Adarsh Cinema, Old Abadi, Sri Ganga Nagar (Raj.) 335001
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pawan Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 and 3 exparte.
Sh. P.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that opposite party no.1 is engaged in the sale of electric goods, LED, Television, refrigerator etc. On every type of assurances given by op no.1, the complainant purchased a LED Model No.29PB200ZE manufactured by op no.2 from op no.1 for a sale price of Rs.19,500/- and the op no.1 issued a cash memo No.15892 dated 13.2.2013 and also given warranty of three years. The op no.1 intentionally filled in the power TV warranty card No. T0676758 and also affixed the bar code on the warranty card. It is further averred that after few days of its use, the LED developed defect as the LED was not showing the full picture. On noticing this defect, the complainant visited op no.1 and reported the above defect in LED whereupon op no.1 advised him to take the LED to op no.3, the authorized service centre of op no.2. On visit to op no.3, op no.3 made some repairs but even then the defect in LED could not be removed. The complainant brought this LED to op no.3 on number of times and on every occasion, the op no.3 made repairs therein but even then the defect could not be removed. Ultimately, on 16.12.2015, op no.3 declared that this LED has manufacturing defect and same cannot be removed. On this, complainant visited op no.1 and requested him to replace the defective LED with a new one but op no.1 refused for the same. That the LED is well within the period of warranty and thus, op no.1 being authorized dealer and op no.2 being its manufacturer are liable to replace the LED but the ops are indulged in unfair trade practice and have also committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant due to which he has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental tension and as such the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the ops. That earlier the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Ganga Nagar but the same was rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction vide order dated 7.11.2016 with a liberty to file the same before the competent court/ forum of jurisdiction. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply submitting therein that complainant has admittedly purchased Toshiba LED vide invoice dated 13.2.2013 from op no.1 who is one of the several retailers of the electronic goods. The said LED was perfectly working at the time of purchase and complainant after being satisfied with the working of the LED took the delivery. The answering op provides a warranty of one year only on the LED wherein the liability of the answering op strictly lies in accordance with the terms and condition of the warranty provided by it and the answering op cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty terms. In terms of the warranty stipulated by answering op, it is liable only to repair the LED of the complainant during the validity period of the warranty. It is further submitted that as per clause 2 under heading “Warranty voids if” of the warranty card a customer is under obligation to provide both the warranty card and the invoice to the personnel of answering op’s authorized service center for inspection of the LED. This condition is only for verification of genuineness of a customer’s warranty claims and for internal records of the answering op and its authorized service centre. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the complainant made first and only complaint with respect to the LED on 17.12.2015 i.e. ten months after expiry of the LED’s one year warranty with the call centre of the answering op with respect to “picture problem” which complaint was registered and the authorized service centre of answering op sent its engineer at the complainant’s residence for examination. After examining the LED, the engineer found that the panel was defective and also that one year warranty had already expired, therefore, the engineer informed the complainant that the LED could be repaired only on chargeable basis. The complainant refused the paid service and became adamant that the LED be repaired free of cost. The copy of the job card prepared by the service engineer is annexed herewith. Subsequently, the engineer took photographs of the LED. The complainant refused the paid service and became adamant that the LED TV be repaired free of cost claiming three years warranty on the LED. The answering op does not provide three years warranty on the LED TV model of the complainant. Therefore, the answering op is not liable to repair the LED TV free of cost. Remaining contents of the complainant are also denied.
3. Opposite parties no.1 and 3 failed to appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of warranty card Ex.C2, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C3 and copy of job sheet Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Nilesh Sharma Ex.R1, copy of resolution Ex.R2, copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.R3, copies of photographs Ex.R4 and copy of the order dated 7.11.2016.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant had purchased a LED from opposite party no.1 manufactured by op no.2. It is also proved on record that op no.1 had given warranty of the LED in question for three years. It is also proved fact on record that LED of the complainant was not working properly and was not giving full picture and when the complainant had visited to the service centre of op no.2 and reported the defect therein, whereas op no.3 made some repairs therein but even then defect in the LED could not be removed rather op no.3 declared that LED has manufacturing defect and same cannot be removed.
7. Though, op no.2 has taken a strong stand that the complaint of the complainant is against settled position of law as the product was out of warranty as warranty was for only one year and not for three years and after examining the LED, the engineer found that the panel was defective and LED could be repaired only on chargeable basis but complainant refused paid service and became adamant that LED be repaired free of costs.
8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for op no.2 has stated at bar that op cannot given offer to give any replacement of the LED after lapse of such time but only can provide the repairing services to the complainant without cost. No doubt, the complainant is suffering due to defect in the LED which was purchased by him in the year 2013 and the ops did not provide proper services to the complainant qua the repairing of the LED, as such it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the ops.
10. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs and to make the LED defect free even by replacing parts, if any without any costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order subject to production of LED to op no.3 i.e. service centre by the complainant. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied with by all the ops jointly and severally. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:20.12.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
