Punjab

Sangrur

CC/899/2015

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahaluxmi Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Hitesh Jindal

16 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                 Complaint   no. 899                                                                                     

                                                                  Instituted on:  26.08.2015

                                                                  Decided on:   16.05.12016

 

Vijay Kumar son of Sh. Lekh Raj, resident of Krishan Bagh Badha, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.M/s Mahaluxmi  Enterprises, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.

2.LG Electronics, Regional Office, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Hitesh Jindal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1    :     Exparte.                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2    :     Shri J.S.Sarao, Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Vijay Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased LG 42" LED from OP No.1 on 24.04.2015  vide invoice  no.R-136  for an amount of Rs.42800/-  under warranty/ guarantee.  From the date of very purchase of the said LED, it has not been functioning properly  for which  complainant approached the OP No.1 and it  sent a mechanic who checked the said LED  and told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect  in the penal of the LED. Then the complainant requested the OP No.1 to replace the LED as it was within the warranty period but they did not do so. The complainant also approached another mechanic who after thorough inspection  gave his opinion that there is a manufacturing defect in the LED. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund  the purchase price of the said LED  i.e. Rs.42800/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 24.04.2015 till  realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.45000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.1 did not appear and as such OP no.1 was proceeded exparte on 26.10.2015. OP No.2 appeared through Shri  J.S.Sarao, Advocate. In its reply,  OP No.2 has taken legal objections on the grounds of suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and locus standi . On merits,  purchase of the LED in question is admitted.  It is averred that  OP No.2 provides  warranty as per terms and conditions of the warranty card and OP No.2 did not provide any guarantee. It has been denied that  the LED has not been working properly since its purchase.  It has been averred that OP no.2 received only one request from the side of complainant in the month of May, 2015 and on 20.05.2015 technician Jagga Singh checked the LED  and found that a part namely  LED  Module/ panel is required to be changed but  the complainant did not allow him to change the part and there is no manufacturing defect  in the LED of the complainant.  

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence. On the other hand, Op No.2 has tendered documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/4.  

4.             It is not disputed  that the complainant had purchased a LG 42" LED from OP No.1  for Rs.42800/-  on 24.04.2015 vide invoice No.R-136 which is Ex.C-5 on record. The complainant's grievance is that from the purchase of the LED in question it has not been functioning/ working  properly and on his request the OP no.2 sent its mechanic who checked the LED and said that there is manufacturing defect  in the penal of the LED.   On the other hand, OP No.2 case is that on 20.05.2015 technician Jagga Singh checked the LED of the complainant  and found that  LCD Module/penal is required to be changed but the complainant did not allow him to change it.   

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2, we find that it is complainant's himself  admitted case that a mechanic of the OP no.2 visited his house and checked the LED in question and told him that there is manufacturing defect in the penal of the LED. Then he approached the OP no.1 for the replacement of the said defective LED with new one. Same is the position with the version of OP No.2 which has been taken by it in its reply. Rather the OP no.2  has stated in the reply that  Module/ penal is required to be changed but the complainant did not allow him to change the said part and there is no manufacturing defect in the LED in question. The complainant in support of his version  has produced on record certificate/ report of  Mr. Nand Lal  proprietor of M/s Madhan TV Centre Dhuri Gate Sangrur who has stated in certificate that he is doing the repair work of LCD/LED's since 10/12 years and he has taken the training under the supervision of experts  and he inspected  the LED of  Vijay Kumar and found that a line seen on the screen and this is manufacturing defect and in his opinion the said LED is not repairable but surprisingly he has not filed an affidavit and copy of certificate of his qualification/ experience to corroborate his report. He has only stated that he is having  sufficient experience to repair  all kind of TV/ LCD/ LED and electronic equipments.  Moreover Mr. Nand Lal did not explain in his report about the manufacturing defect rather he only says that a line seen on the screen and this is a manufacturing defect. In view of this, we find that it is not a valid expert opinion in the eyes of law.   The OP no. 2 has produced on record copy of job sheet Ex.OP2/3  wherein  in the column defect report by the Engineer  it has been mentioned "  PND FOR PANEL"  and  in the column Technical remarks It has been mentioned "  Talk to Tajiv Sir  Cust. Refuse to repair ( LCE Panel to be Rep.). "  From the above discussion, we feel that there is defect in the panel/ module of the LED in question which is repairable/ replaceable as mentioned in the warranty terms and conditions Ex.C-4.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that defects were developed in the penal/ module of the LED of the complainant within the warranty period which is admitted by the OP No.2 for which the complainant really suffered  a lot of harassment.  As such, the OPs are deficient in service and liable to replace the penal/ module of the LED in question and also pay compensation for harassment.  Hence, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to replace  the module/ penal of the LED of the complainant with new one and to make the LED in question in the proper working  to the satisfaction of the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                  

                Announced

                May 16, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

BBS/-