BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.23 of 2017
Date of Instt. 23.01.2017
Date of Decision:10.04.2018
Gurpreet Kaur aged about daughter of Late S. Pritpal Singh resident of H. No.2A Ghai Nagar, Model House, Jalandhar-Punjab.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Katyal Agencies, (Deals In: LCD, CTV, Refrigerator, Air Conditioners etc.) Opposite AAR KAY DHABA, Adda Bhargava Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Person.
2. M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Limited, Registered Office A Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket New Delhi-110017 through its Director/Authorized Person.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. GL Gagneja, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Opposite Parties exparte.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Gurpreet Kaur under 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986' against OPs on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer that the OPs be directed to replace the LED free of cost with the new set of same quality and to hand over the same or to refund the sale price of the above said LED and be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs alongwith litigation expenses.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one LG LED 42LY340C TP from OP No.1 against the payment of Rs.37,400/-, vide Invoice No.R-843 dated 07.11.2015. At the time of selling the above said LED, the OP No.1 stated that it was the best piece and gave three years warranty which is duly mentioned on the Warranty Card and it was issued by OP No.1. It is duly mentioned in the said warranty card, in case of defect, LG Electronics India Pvt. Limited undertakes to get the set repaired free of charge during warranty period. The OP No.1 further stated that although the OP No.2 is responsible for the warranty of the said LED, but still he gave assurance that no defect/fault would occur in the said LED within three years. He further stated that if in case there is any defect or fault occurs within three years, then OPs shall be responsible for such defect and they will become liable for the replacement of the said LED or such defect shall be removed/repaired by them at their own costs or in case such default still occurs then they will refund the payment of Rs.37,400/- which was charged by the OP No.1 as sale price of the said LED. That suddenly after 5-6 months i.e. in the month of May 2016, the said LED did not work properly and there was defect occurred in its sound system and all the channels and programs were becoming mute and the same condition is still in existence. That thereafter, the complainant went to the shop of OP No.1 and made the complaint regarding the above said defect of the LED, but OP No.1 advised the complainant to contact to the OP No.2 through their customer care information centre. The complainant telephonically contacted the customer care centre of the OP No.2 and lodged his complaint about the above said defect of the said LED and his complaint No.RNA 160518090538 and the said complaint was lodged by the complainant on 18.05.2016. After lodging the said complaint, the OP No.2 sent SMS to the complainant. That thereafter, one service agent of the OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant and checked the above said defective LED and stated that there is some manufacturing defect in the LED and some parts of the LED is required to be changed and assured the complainant that he will come again with the parts and will remove the defects of the said LED. That an other SMS was received by the complainant from OP No.2, wherein stated that “the parts have been ordered to LG”, but thereafter, no one come to the complainant for the repair of the said LED. The complainant again received a SMS, wherein stated that “your service request is closed” and reason is that “Customer cannot be contacted and charge collected Rs.0/-. That after reading this message, the complainant was stunned and he immediately contacted the OP No.2 through its customer care number, but the behaviour of the OP No.2 was very rude and they flatly refused to repair the above said LED, whereas the complainant is legally entitled to get the same repaired from the OP No.2 free of cost as according to the warranty given by the OP No.1. Hence, this present complaint.
3. After formal admission of the complaint, notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, the OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, the OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same has not been properly verified as required under law. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable, it is gross misuse of process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint just to pressurizing and harassing the answering OPs. That the present false and frivolous complaint has been filed on the basis of vague and evasive assertions. It is further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed the material facts. The real facts are that the complainant herself is guilty of her wrong doings as the LED purchased by the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect and complainant has made a false claim. On merits, it is stated that it is matter of record with regard to the purchase of LED and izts warranty card and the OP No.2 is not responsible for that if any false assurance made by the OP No.1 with regard to the answering OP. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.
5. After filing of written statement by the OP No.2, when the case was fixed for evidence, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and ultimately, the OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte on 10.11.2017.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also examined the entire material on the record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us by the counsel for the complainant.
7. It is established on the file that the complainant has purchased one LG LED for a sum of Rs.37,400/- from OP No.1, vide Invoice dated 07.11.2015, which is Ex.C-1. Three years warranty was also given to the complainant, which is duly attached herewith and it is Ex.C-2.
8. After 5-6 months, the said LED started giving problem and there was a defect in the sound system and all the programs went mute. Thereafter, the complainant telephonically contacted the customer care centre and lodged many complaints to the OP No.2. Many SMS were sent to the complainant and one service agent of OP No.2 also came to the house of the complainant and checked the LED and stated that there is manufacturing defect in the LED and some parts of the LED are required to be changed and assured the complainant that he will come again with parts and remove the defects. There is one SMS in the complaint, which shows that the parts are ordered to LG and the complaint of the complainant was closed without rectifying the parts of the LED. 9. There are two main issues for consideration, firstly whether the LED in question is under warranty and secondly whether there is any manufacturing defect in the said LED. Regarding the first issue, we find that the terms and conditions stated in Warranty Card that if any defect occurs in the LED, the LG Pvt. Ltd. will be liable to repair or make it functional free of cost. Here the LED was purchased on 07.11.2015 and the defect occurred after 5-6 months i.e. in the month of May, 2016. So, we can say that the LED in question is within warranty period and the OP No.2 (Service Station) is liable to make repair or replace the defective parts.
10. Now, regarding the second issue that whether there is any manufacturing defect in the LED and whether there is need for replacement of whole unit or refund of whole amount, we can say in such cases, the replacement is only to be given if the product is beyond repair or there is any manufacturing defect, which is found in the LED and which is not repairable. However, no such evidence is produced by the complainant on the file which prove that the LED in question has any manufacturing defect and it is not repairable, as such, no reliance can be placed to conclude that LED in question is not repairable. Moreover, as stated by the complainant in its complaint that the service agent of OP No.2 came to his house and checked the LED and stated that there is some manufacturing defects and the parts are to be changed or replaced. But there is no affidavit of Service Expert, who would prove that there is a manufacturing defect. Further, OP No.2 contended that the service engineer visited to the house of the complainant, but the complainant insisted only for the replacement of the LED. There is no evidence on the file, which shows that the complainant refused to get the LED in question repaired or was insisting for the replacement of the LED, as such, no reliance can be placed on the contention of the OP No.2. So, due to lack of any evidence and due to absence of any manufacturing defect the order of replacement cannot be granted. So, the appropriate remedy with this Forum is to order for repairing the LED in question.
11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and OPs are directed to repair the LED free of cost and make it functional within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of harassment and mental tension and OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
10.04.2018 Member President
