| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 255 of 2-11-2021 Decided on : 18-5-2023 Manpreet Singh aged about 35 years S/o Sh. Shinder Singh R/o Village Nehian Wala, Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus M/s Hira Lal Bansal Lal & Company, LG Electronics India(P) Limited, 46, New Cloth Market, The Mall, Hanuman chowk, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory. M/s LG Electronics India (Pvt.) Limited, Registered Office at A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Director/ Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory. LG Service Centre, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Street No.5, Opposite Pooja Bakery, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite parties No.1 & 3 Ex-parte. Sh. K.P. Sharma, for OP No.2. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Manpreet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against M/s Hira Lal Basan Lal & Company and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 deals in the business of home appliances including distributorship of LG products at Bathinda and the opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of LG products and opposite party No.3 is authorized service center of LG Company at Bathinda. It is alleged that complainant purchased one LG LED (Smart TV) 32LM636B, bearing serial number 102PLYZ125922 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice/Bill No. R/2857 dated 03.03.2021 against cash payment of Rs.16,770/- and the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant with regard to proper/smooth functioning and genuineness of the same in all respects at that time. It is alleged that immediately after purchasing of the LED in question, the same was installed in the house of complainant on 04.03.2021 by opposite party No.3 and the complainant started using the same. After few days, its only sound was working and the picture was not seen and was missing and its screen was totally black and nothing was visible. In this respect, complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite parties vide his complaint No. RNP210403081223 on 03.04.2021 and their service agent/engineer visited the premises of the complainant, but the problem was not solved. On 07.04.2021, complainant again reminded his complaint with the opposite parties through customer care call and they replied that the complaint of the complainant is under process. On 08.04.2021, a company service agent/engineer of opposite parties again visited the premises of the complainant and the LED in question was repaired and the same started working and some part of LED was changed by the aforesaid service agent/Engineer. The complainant alleged that after some time, the LED in question started giving same problems and the picture started moving here and there and the same was not clear, rather the same was dark and that too dim and it was not visible properly. There were lines/landscaper on its screen and the colours were also not proper. The complainant again lodged complaint with the opposite parties on 11.09.2021 and service agent/engineer of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and checked the LED, but the same could not be repaired and the fault could not be removed. Thereafter, after some days, main LED/main panel of the LED was changed by the service agent of the opposite parties and even thereafter, the same did not work properly and its colours were not proper and the colours were not visible. The defects were there and could not be got removed even after change of main panel. It is also alleged that thereafter, the complainant many times made phone calls to authorized service head Mr. Varinder Kumar at Bathinda office of the opposite parties, but to no response and they did not give any satisfactory much less proper reply. Still the same is not working properly and there is manufacturing defect in the same and useless. The LED is in guarantee/warranty period. The complainant requested the opposite parties time and again to consider his complaint and either to replace the LED as there is manufacturing defect or to refund its price, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to replace the LED with new one or to refund the price of the same i.e. Rs.16,770/- alongwith interest 18% p.a. from the date of purchase of the LED and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental as well as physical agony, harassment and humiliation in addition to any other additional or alternative relief. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties, but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 3. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary party. That no cause of action arose to complainant to file the present complaint. The complainant as and when has lodged complaint with regard to his LED TV with opposite party No.3 the same has been duly attended and reported problem of display panel has been duly rectified free of cost under warranty by changing the required parts, but complainant with ulterior motive has now filed the present complaint alleging totally false allegations. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 2 or its service centre has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions. There is no inherent defect in the LED TV nor there is any, deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As and when complaint has been lodged by the complainant the same has been duly attended by opposite party No.3 and reported problem has been rectified free of cost under warranty. It has also been pleaded that performance of the LED monitor depends upon the physical handling of the product and voltage/ electricity supply. In the present case, the LED TV has been duly rectified by changing the display panel free of cost under warranty and the same is perfectly working. The complainant has intentionally not disclosed the true facts before this Commission. The liability of opposite party No. 2 is limited subject to warranty terms and conditions. As per warranty terms no such assurance to replace the product is given. If the complainant does not agree with the submissions of opposite party No. 2, it was requested that this Commission can get the product checked from an independent expert and seek an expert opinion regarding the exact condition of the product as required under the law. It has been further pleaded that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of LED Monitor with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence. On merits, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controvering all the averments of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 29.10.2021 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rishab Kumar Dated 18.1.2022 (Ex. OP-2/1) and close the evidence. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one LED Smart TV of LG Company vide Invoice dated 3-3-2021 (Ex. C-3). However, immediately after purchase, LED was found to be defective and it was found that picture could not be seen and screen was totally blank. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite parties on 3-4-2021, but the problem could not be solved. On 7-4-2021, complainant again reminded the opposite parties through customer care and on 8-4-2021, LED was repaired by changing some part but after sometimes, LED again stopped working. It has been argued that LED is having manufacturing defect from the very begining and opposite parties had delebrately and fraudulently supplied defective piece of LED to the complainant and inspite of receipts of complaints Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-10, LED could not be repaired. It is further argued that even after repair, the picture quality of the said LED as has been captured vide photographs Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12, the LED is in the same bad shape and of no use and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has argued that complaint of the complainant was fully attended and reported problem of display penal was rectified free of cost under warranty by changing parts. However, present complaint has been filed with malafide intention. It is further argued that replacement of LED cannot be allowed wthout opinion of independent expert and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased LED Smart TV from opposite party No. 1 retailer, manufactured by opposite party No. 2 vide GST Invoice Ex. C-3. It is further admitted fact that said LED was having defects from the very beginning which is established from first complaint dated 4-3-2021. However, the opposite party No. 2 has claimed that since the defect has been repaired by replacing display panel free of cost, as such, complaint is not maintainable. A perusal of messages Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-10 shows that defect was not rectified even thereafter on account of which the complainant had to lodge complaints time and again and last complaint is of 7-10-2021. It is further established on record from photographs Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-12 that inspite of repair of LED, picture quality of the said LED is very bad and even after a lapse of considerable time and even on filing of present complaint, defect in the LED could not be rectified. As such, this Commission is of the view that act on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 of having supplied defective LED to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to supply a new LED Smart TV of same price to the complainant after receiving old LED from him. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are also held liable to pay Rs. 2,000/- to complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 18-05-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
