DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.253/2018

Shri Chitranjan Pandey

H.No. 602-D/19, Ward No.3,

Flat No.B-3, Urvashi Apartments,

Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030.                                                              

       ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Infinity Retail Limited

Trading as Croma Tax Invoice

80/09, Kishan Garh,Nr. Rahim Hotel,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070

Also at

E-150, Saket, New Delhi-110017

2. M/s LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

A-Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3 District Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017                                     …Opposite Parties

                                                         Date of Institution        : 05.09.2018               Date of Order      : 08.04.2021

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case as pleaded on his behalf are that the Complainant had purchased an LG LED 109M TV on 16.07.2017 from M/s Infinity Retail Limited trading as Croma (hereinafter referred to as OP-1). The said product was having a service warranty for two years by way of Extended Warranty Card.
   1. Due to some problems in the LG TV the Complainant sent the  product to Service Centre i.e. M/s LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).  The Complainant has filed two Job Sheets dated 10.07.2018 and 22.07.2018 stating that the product in question is lying with OP-2. Complainant repeatedly visited the service centre and was informed that the TV had not been repaired. However, the Complainant received a letter dated 08.08.2018 from OP informing that the said TV stood repaired and was lying for delivery to the Complainant. It is informed that the letter sent by the OP was in response to the email dated 01.08.2018 sent by the Complainant. On visit to the Service Centre the Complainant  was  shocked to know that an important part of TV i.e. LCD Module TFT has been changed and a lower quality part worth Rs.17,000/- has been replaced with the original one. Complainant being unhappy with the inferior quality of the part asked the OPs to replace it with the original part or refund the amount paid for purchasing the TV set. But OPs paid no heed to his request.
   2.  Thus aggrieved the Complainant approached this Commission with the prayer for direction to refund the amount of Rs.60,000/- spent for the purchase of said TV alongwith payment of interest and Rs.20,000/- as compensation  towards mental agony, physical hardship and the cost of present complaint.
2. OP resisted the complaint and filed reply to the complaint stating inter-alia that the Complainant had purchased LED TV on 16.07.2017 and thereafter the product in question  had been used for one year smoothly without any complaint. Moreover on 10.07.2018 the Complainant made his 1^st complaint and alleged that there was a blue blinking at the side corner of the product in question. The product in question was examined by the competent Service Engineer of OP No.2 and it was found that its panel should be changed. Since the said TV was under warranty period hence its part panel was changed without any cost on the same day at the house of the Complainant. It is next stated that after the replacement of new panel TV was functioning fine. It is further stated that old IPS panel is lying in the house of the Complainant, which was inadvertently not collected by Service Engineer at the time of replacement of the same. 

3(i)    It is further stated by the OP that the Complainant made another complaint on 18.07.2018 regarding the LED TV and insisted for its proper inspection at the Service Centre of OP No.2. However, at the Service Centre after re-inspection no defect was found and the Complainant was intimated the same and was requested to collect his LED TV from the Service Centre of OP No.2. The Complainant was further informed that TFT Panel changed on 10.07.2018 is the original product of the company having same specification as of IPS panel and there is no defect in the LED, whatsoever.

3(ii)   Thereafter the Complainant was requested to collect the LED TV many times instead the Complainant sent a legal notice and has malafidely filed the present complaint. It is thus requested that the complaint be rejected with exemplary costs.

3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit are filed on behalf of the complainant. Affidavit of Sh. Ajayan is filed on behalf of OP-2. Written arguments are filed by the parties.  Submissions made by the Complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused carefully.  
4. Tax invoice appended at page No.-7 of the complaint shows that the complainant purchased a LG LED on 16.07.2017 by paying the consideration of Rs.58,858/- to OP.
5. Admittedly Complainant’s LG LED TV developed certain defects within the warranty period and the job sheets annexed with the complaint show that on 10.07.2018 and 22.07.2018 Complainant’s TV was received, attended to and repaired at this house. Dissatisfied with the repairs he had given the TV to the authorized service centre of LG Electronics. Mails exchanged between the parties on 01.08.2018 annexed at page-9 & 10 show that the Complainant was not satisfied with the services of OP. The main issue of contention between the parties is that the Complainant alleges that during repairs the LCD Module TFT was changed and an inferior quality part had been replaced with the original one. Whereas OP submits that the service centre of OP had duly apprised the Complainant that TFT Panel changed on 10.07.2018 is the original product of the company having same specification as of IPS Panel and there is no defect in the LED whatsoever.
6. The job sheet dated 10.07.2018 annexed at page No.15 of the complaint reflects that the LCD Module TFT unit price of which is Rs.17372/- was replaced free of cost as the product in question was under warranty. OP No.2 has not categorically /specifically denied that the LCD Module TFT was changed instead of IPS Panel; rather OP No.2 is claiming that the TFT panel changed is having the same specification as IPS panel. These pleadings are not supported by Expert Opinion by any of the parties whether the replaced product was inferior, superior or of same specification as the original.
7. This Commission has no expertise to adjudicate whether IPS Panel or TFT Panel gives better picture quality or is better in any other way. But this Commission is of the opinion that OP No.2 before changing the Panel should have taken the consent of the Complainant or should have explained it to the Complainant that the part changed was from Company and was as good as previous one.  Having thus failed to take the Complainant in confidence and satisfying him that the replaced product was as good as the original, we hold OPs to be deficient in service to that limited extent.
8. Therefore in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Commission directs OPs jointly and severally to refund the depreciated value of TV i.e. Rs.50,000/- alongwith Rs.8000/- towards mental agony and litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days of receipt of copy this order. Failing which OPs jointly and severally become liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 08.04.2021.