Delhi

North East

CC/185/2018

Sh. Morpal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hindustan Distributor - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 185/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Morpal Sharma S/o Siya Ram Sharma R/o:- H.No. A-19, A Block, Street no. 3 Bhagirathi Vihar, Dayalpur North East, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1       2	Hindustan Distributor B-127, 100 Ft. Road, Hardev Puri Shahdara, Delhi-110093   M/s. Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 45, Gali No. 7 (Kachchi) Swaroop Nagar, Delhi-110042   Also at: Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No. 43/25, Village Khera Kalan Nangli Khera Road New Delhi-110085   Branch office: C-168, 2nd Floor, Naraina Phase-1 New Delhi-110028	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

31.08.2018 28.08.2020 28.08.2020

 

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1.  Facts germane for disposal of the present complaint are that around 2014 in the period of Diwali festival, the complainant lured by scheme of five years warranty on LED / TV offered by OP3 (manufacturer arraigned in the original complaint) purchased a 32 inch Videocon LED model no. VJW32FH from OP1 seller / dealer on 20.10.2014 for a sum of Rs. 18,700/- inclusive of VAT vide invoice no. HD2755. After three years of use, in the month of November 2017, the subject LED went out of order and on complaint made by the complainant to this effect, OP2, service center took the subject LED for repair on 27.11.2017 vide challan no. 10146 and installed a replacement set no. VJRP2ED32 in the premises of the complainant. The so replaced LED became non-functional in July 2018 after eight months of use for which the complainant registered a complaint no. DEL-1907180034 dated 19.07.2018 but when no response came forth for repair of the same, the complainant lodged another complaint no. DEL-0408180320 on 04.08.2018 but it was rejected by OP on ground of expiry of warranty period whereas as per the Diwali scheme / offer given by OP3, the subject LED had warranty of five  years from purchase i.e. upto 19.10.2019. Therefore alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs causing complainant monetary loss and mental and physical harassment, the complainant filed the present complaint praying for issuance of direction against OPs to either return the original LED set purchased by the complainant on 20.10.2014 or in the alternate replace the defective replacement set with a new LED on extension of warranty. The complainant also prayed for issuance of direction to OPs to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses and also to discontinue such unfair trade practice.
2. Complainant has attached original purchase invoice and copy thereof issued by OP1, original replacement challan and copy thereof issued by OP2, original booklet of owner manual and warranty card issued by OP3.
3. Notice was issued to the OP on 03.10.2018. However, none appeared on behalf of OPs despite service effected or refused which is also deemed service and therefore OP1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.02.2019, OP2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.08.2019 and complainant deleted OP3 from the array of parties vide application moved on 24.01.2020.
4. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant in reassertion / reiteration of grievance against OP1 & OP2, OP3 being deleted.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by counsel for complainant alongwith complainant in person through video conferencing. To the specific query  raised by this Forum to prove the assertion of five year warranty alleged to have been given by OP3 on the subject LED as averred by the complainant, the complainant could neither prove the same or place on record any documentary evidence to this effect. Therefore, this assertion made by the complainant is bald and unsubstantiated / uncorroborated and stand defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (assertion made without proof).As per the Owner Manual and accompanying customer warranty card filed by the complainant, the subject LED carried one year warranty against manufacturing defect valid from the date of purchase. However, notwithstanding, we observe that the subject LED was taken by OP2 for repairs in November 2017 on replacement basis whereby OP2 installed another LED on 27.11.2017 at the premises of the  complainant but OP2 never returned the originally purchased LED to the complainant since the same was in its possession since November 2017. This act of OP2 is manifest of deficiency of service. We therefore partly allow the present complaint to the limited extent of culpability of OP2 alone and direct OP2 to return the original LED purchased by the complainant from OP1 vide cash memo dated 20.10.2014 after repairing the same (free of cost) to the satisfaction of the complainant. We further direct OP2 to pay compensation of  Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards mental and physical harassment inclusive of litigation charges. No order against OP1 as being seller since the subject LED functioned uninterruptedly for continuous period of three years ruling out any manufacturing defect in the sold product. Let the order be complied with by OP2 within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 28.08.2020.

 

(Arun Kumar Arya)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member