Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/545/2018

Sh. Sumit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	545 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	01.10.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	03.04.2019

 

 

 

 

Sumit Kumar son of Sh.Krishan Kumar, aged 25 years, resident of #180, Mamta Enclave Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.    

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing (3^rd Floor), D-3, District Center Saket, New Delhi – 110017

 

2]  M/s Meena Electronics, Shop No.592, Main Market, Hallomajra, Chandigarh, UT.

 

3]  Customer Care LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, District Centre Saket, New Delhi 110017

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Complainant in person.

 Sh.Arjun Grover, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 3.

 Opposite Party No.2 exparte.

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a LG Brand LED Smart TV Sr.No.606 through Opposite Party No.2 on 02.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.27,000/- against bill and it was carrying two years warranty.   It is averred that in Feb., 2018, the said TV  was found to be not working, which was reported to the OPs, but the Technician as well as Customer Care of Opposite Parties refused to repair or replace the LED TV in question stating it to be as misused operation and not covered under warranty. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with LG Company, which too demanded an amount of Rs.9000/- to solve the complaint.  It is also averred that there is no any misuse of operation of TV by the complainant and it is also covered in the extended warranty as per condition No.6 of the warranty card.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 3 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the product in question is having One year comprehensive warranty and One year extended warranty (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that the complainant for the first time contacted the OP Company regarding the issue on 7.9.2018 i.e. after One year & 11 months, whereupon the Service Engineer was sent, who diagnosed that the panel of the LED is physically damaged/broken.  It is also stated that the Service Engineer apprised the complainant that since the panel is broken, the same is not covered under the warranty and the same would be repaired/replaced on chargeable basis and the estimate was also given to the complainant, but the complainant insisted on free of cost repair/replacement (Ann.R-2 collectively).  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

         Opposite Party No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.11.2018.

 

3]       The complainant has also filed replication thereby reiterating the assertion as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by Opposite Parties.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainant purchased LG LED Smart TV from Opposite Party No.2 on 2.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.27000/- against Bill Ann.C-1.  It is also admitted that the said LED TV was having one year comprehensive warranty and one year extended warranty.  It is also admitted that the penal of the LED TV in question became defective in the second year of its purchase and when it was reported to OPs, they demanded repair/replacement cost of the penal alleging it to be out of warranty.

 

7]       The extended warranty terms & conditions, so placed on record by the complainant, clearly speaks out the case of the complainant.  The relevant clause No.6 of the extended warranty is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:-

“5. The Panel/Module of LED TV shall be repaired or replaced during the extended warranty period as per the company policy.  The Company decision shall be final as per the circumstances.  In the event of non availability of original spares the company may offer, as per company policy, the depreciated value of the product.”

 

8]       The above reproduced terms & conditions of the extended warranty clearly establishes that in case of any damage to the panel/module of the LED TV in question that shall be repaired or replaced, as per the company policy.  It is also incorporated in the conditions that the company’s decision shall be final as per circumstances.

9]       In the present case, it reveals that the complaint of broken panel of the LED TV in question was not brought to the notice of the company (manufacturer) and the official at the Service Centre of the Company, at their own, refused to change/replace the penal and wrongly asked the complainant to pay the price for getting the penal replaced, even though it was covered under the extended warranty.  As per terms & conditions of the warranty, the Opposite Parties are under liability to replace the damaged panel of the LED TV in question free of cost and by not following the terms & conditions of the warranty, the OPs have forced the complainant to indulged into present litigation.  Thus the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large.

 

10]      Keeping in view the facts & circumstance of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to replace the panel of the LED TV in question with new one, free of cost, making it fully functional. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a composite amount of Rs.8000/- towards compensation for causing harassment to the complainant as well as litigation expenses.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- apart from the above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

3^rd April, 2019                        

                                                                                       Sd/-            

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Om