Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/707

SURJIT KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LG ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

         150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO.  707/15

Smt. Surjit Kaur

W/o S. Jaswinder Singh

R/O 2113, Gali no. 8, Prem Nagar

New Delhi-110008

.                                                                  …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Plot no. 51-Suraj Pur, Kasna Road,

Greater Noida, Udayg Vihar,

Noida-201310                                                                                                                    

2.  BAJAJ ALLIANCE Pvt. Ltd.

201-201 A, ITL,

Twin Tower, Plot No. B-09

Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura,

New Delhi-110034

3.    M/S Rakesh Electronics

2363, Main Road,

Near Metro Pillar NO. 218

Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008                             

O R D E R

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased LED of make and model LG GL42LB5610 from the OP-3 on 24.06.2015 for a sum of Rs. 45,500/- The complainant also purchased one year additional warranty from OP-1 and 2. The complainant got financed LED from Bajaj Finserve against ten EMIS of Rs. 4550/- which are still pending. It is alleged that the LED was not functioning properly from the inception and there was technical problem in the screen as a result of which cracks appeared. It is alleged that the facts were immediately brought to the notice of OP-1 on 17.08.2015 and several complaints were lodged but to no effect. It is alleged that the OP-1 tried to pass the buck on OP-2 on the pretext that the OP-2 insured the LED and on other hand OP-2 alleged that OP-1 was liable as it has insured the product in dispute. It is further alleged that OPs-1 and 2 despite complaints are not redressing the grievance of the complainant. It is further alleged the complaint is paying EMIS to Bajaj finserve. It is averred that OPs-1 and 2 are deficient in services.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the OPs to replace the LED or to repair the product in dispute free of cost or refund the amount of the LED and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation.   

   After notice OP-1 appeared and filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that the complaint is without merit and there is no cause of action against Ops.  It is asserted that the LED was physically damaged hence there is no warranty. On merits the op admitted that the complainant purchased LED from OP-3 for sum of Rs. 40444/- including VT sum of Rs. 5056/- with one year warranty. It is asserted that the LED was delivered in perfect condition and there was no manufacturing  defect  and first complaint was made on 17.08.2015. It is asserted that after receiving complaint the service engineer visited and found the cracks on the screen and the panel was physically damaged and as a result product in dispute was out of warranty period and would be repaired on payment of charges. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service on part of OP-1 neither they adopted unfair trade practice nor there is any deficiency in service and are not liable to pay any damages and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Despite service OPs-2 and 3 failed to appear and were proceeded ex-parte. The OP-1 was also proceeded ex-parte on 14.10.2016.  

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1  reiterating the facts of the complaint and controverting the stand taken by the OP-1 in reply.

When the complaint was asked to lead evidence she filed affidavit of evidence testifying the contents of complaint on oath. She relied on invoice of LED dated 24.09.2015, extended warranty card with terms and conditions, extended warranty card registrations.  

We have carefully gone through the documents placed on record and heard learned counsel for complainant.

The controversy involved is as to whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought. The version of the complainant which is testified on oath remains unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve  the version of the complainant.  The LED in dispute developed fault on 17.08.2015 after approximately two months which was also admitted by the OP-1. The contention of OP-1 was that the LED was physically damaged and thus the product in dispute is out of warranty but there is no iota of evidence to support the contention and merely by stating that the product in dispute was physically damaged is not tenable. Whereas the complainant has specifically denied that the LED was physically damaged and due to technical problem in screen certain cracks appeared.

On perusal of clause no. 13 of extended warranty it reveals that any damage to product, the warranty shall not be applicable but  the OP-1 has not placed any document to support that there is physical damage and merely by stating that it is out of warranty could not absolve OP-1 from the liability. Whereas the warranty card shows that it is covered for theft burglary and accidental damage. Hence the complainant is able to establish her version that the product in dispute is covered under warranty and ops-1 and 2 are liable to repair the same within warranty. We are of the considered view that contention of OP-1 alleging  that the product in dispute is physically damaged and the warranty is void which is not corroborated with documents does not hold water. Hence OPs has failed to honor the warranty terms and conditions and deficient in services.

In view of the above discussion and observations we direct Ops-1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs. 40,000/- depreciated amount of the product in dispute and we also award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation charges within 45 days of receipt of this order. In case of default of payment in time the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of filing of thecomplaint till actual realization.                                                                                                                                                  Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.         

 (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                            (K.S. MOHI)                                                                       

     Member                                                                                    President