Haryana

Karnal

CC/505/2021

Tilak Raj Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahabir Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Sharma

07 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 505 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.15.09.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:07.04.2023

 

Tilak Raj Sharma aged about 67 years son of Shri Sardari Lal Sharma, resident of House no.99/7, Station Area, Nilokheri, District Karnal. Aadhar no.7523 7668 1609.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Mahabir Electronics, # Arya Smaj Road, Nilokheri, District Karnal, through its Proprietor Mr. Rinku.

 

2.     LG Service Centre, Nirmal Colony, near Mela Ram School, Karnal through its Engineer Mohit.

 

3.     LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Head Office plot no.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Utter Pradesh, India-201306.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri D.K. Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Gagan Sehgal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 10.11.2020, complainant had purchased a LED TV 3201 (Smart LG) bearing HSN/SAC code 8528 from the OP no.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-. OP no.3 is the manufacturer of the said LED. At the time of purchase of said LED, OP no.1 issued a rough invoice no.109 dated 10.11.2020 of the Balaji Electronics, Arya Samaj Road, Nilokheri, District Karnal and pacca bill of Mahabir electronics, Arya Smaj Road, Nilokheri.  OP no.1 had given two years warranty of said LED on the part of the OP no.2 as OP no.2 is the authorized service centre of the OP no.3. After 2-3 months of purchase of the LED, it started creating problem and then complainant approached the OP no.1 and intimated that said LED is not working properly. The employee of the OP no.1 checked the LED and after checking he said that the LED will be repaired at the shop. OP no.1 assured the complainant till then the LED of the complainant would not cured, till then OP no.1 will provide the complainant another LED to the complainant. Being agree in this regard, employee of the OP no.1 had taken the LED in question and installed another second hand LED at the house of complainant. Complainant lodged complaint with the OP no.3, then OP no.2 had visited the house of complainant and after checking of said LED, the employee of OP no.2 namely Mohit said to the complainant that it is not exact LED TV and there are  some parts missing and some   parts should be repaired and the OP no.2 told that in case if the complainant wants to repair his LED TV from the OP no.2, then OP no.2 will charge Rs.6500/-. Further, OP no.2 advised the complainant to approach the OP no.1 for getting exact LED TV which has been purchased by complainant, then he will remove the defect of said LED under warranty. Complainant approached the OP no.1 and narrated the entire incident and demanded exact LED TV which has been purchased by complainant through abovesaid invoice, then OP no.1 become furious and started misbehaving with the complainant. On 16.07.021, complainant had moved a written complaint against the OP no.1 before the office of SP, Karnal with a request to take legal action against OP no.1 and to provide back the original LG LED TV to complainant, which was actually purchased by him, but police official have not taken any action against the OP no.1. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.08.2021 through his counsel to the OP no.1, but it also did not yield any result. Complainant requested the OPs several times either to replace the LG LED TV with new one or to return Rs.16,000/-as the cost of the LED but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant purchased an LED TV of LG company from OP no.1 on 10.11.2020 against valid bill. The fault occurred in the said LED which has been rectified by the official of the OP no1, as it was a minor fault of power cable of the said LED which has been changed by the employee of OP no.1. OP no.1 was only authorized dealer of the said company and having no liability of any fault occurred in the LED and this fact is clearly mentioned in the invoice of the complainant i.e. invoice no.261 dated 10.12.2020 where it is specifically be mentioned that good sold are under manufactures guarantee. As such the OP no.1 having no liability if any fault occurred in the LED. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.05.2022 of the Commission.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.3 i.e. L.G. Electronics is a renewed company in Electronics Products and Commodities and is manufacturing electronics products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronics products is highly sophisticated. No question of any deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3 arises. It is further pleaded that LED in question purchased by the complainant from the OP no.1 is not exactly the one for which the invoice had been issued by the OP no.1. The complainant has got his LED repaired form a local mechanic except the OP no.2 i.e. authorized service centre of the OP no.3. Hence, as per the company’s warranty terms and conditions policy, the LED of the complainant had become out of warranty. The panel of the LED was found to be broken at the time when the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant. An estimate for the replacement/repair of the LED was given to the complainant but he adamantly refused to pay even a single penny for the same and demanded free of cost replacement of the panel. It is further pleaded that all the allegations leveled against the OP no.1, so question for refund of cost of LED or compensation or litigation expenses does not arise. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill no.261 dated 10.11.2020 Ex.C1, copy of rough bill no.109 dated 10.11.2020 Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 17.08.2021 Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, newspaper cutting Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 23.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Virender Kumar Ex.OPW1/A and closed the evidence on 11.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Batra Ex.OPW3/A and closed the evidence on 06.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

10.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that on 10.11.2020, complainant had purchased a LED TV  from the OP no.1, amounting to Rs.16,000/-. After 2-3 months of purchase of the LED, it started creating problems. Complainant approached the OP no.1 and made complaint in this regard. The official of the OP no.1 checked the LED but the defect could not be removed. Complainant lodged the complaint with the OP no.3, then OP no.2 had visited the house of complainant and after checking of LED, said that the said LED was not LG company and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the LED in question of LG company from OP no.1 on 10.11.2020 against valid bill. The fault occurred in the said LED which has been rectified by the official of the OP no1, as it was a minor fault of power cable of the said LED which has been changed by the employee of OP no.1. OP no.1 was only authorized dealer of the LG company and having no liability of any fault occurred in the LED and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

12.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that LED in question purchased by the complainant from the OP no.1 is not exactly the one for which the invoice had been issued by the OP no.1. The complainant has got his LED repaired form a local mechanic except the OP no.2 i.e. authorized service centre of the OP no.3. Hence, as per the company’s warranty terms and conditions policy, the LED of the complainant had become out of warranty. The panel of the LED was found to be broken at the time when the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant. and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

13.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14.           Admittedly, on 10.11.2020 complainant had purchased a LED TV 3201 (Smart LG) from the OP no.1 amounting to Rs.16,000/-. In this regard, OP no.1 also issued tax invoice Ex.C1.

15.           The LED in question was having defect from the very beginning. The employee of OP no.1 had checked the LED in question and found fault of power cable of said LED, which has been changed by OP no.1. But as per the version of the complainant, the fault was not removed and remained as it is.

16.           On receipt of pucca bill from the OP no.1, complainant lodged a complaint on toll free number of the company i.e. OP no.3. Being LG service centre, OP no.2 checked the said LED and found that LED purchased by the complainant from the OP no.1 was not actually the one for which the invoice had been issued by the OP no.1. The LED sold by the OP no.1 was not of the LG company. It is also evident from the newspaper cutting Ex.C5, numbers of LED were found having bogus marka of the company. It has been proved on the record that OP no.1 has sold the LED which was not LG companies mentioned in tax invoice Ex.C1. It is also proved on record that LED in question was having defect from the very beginning. It appears that OP No.1 has sold the assembled LED and charged the cost of the LG company LED. Thus, the act of the OP no.1 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to refund Rs.16,000/- as cost of the LED in question to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is also directed to handover the LED in question to the OP no.1. The complaint qua OPs no.2 and 3 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:07.04.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 (Vineet Kaushik)      

         Member