BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No. 422 of 2018
Date of Instt. 09.10.2018
Date of Decision: 03.02.2022
Amit Mattu S/o Sh. Jai Pal R/o NH-310, Neela Mahal, Jalandhar, (Mobile No.97790-30009 & 95174-31990).
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Rimpi Electroworld, Through its Authorized Person, Circular Road, Jalandhar City.
2. M/s Videocon Industries Limited Authorized Service Centre, Through its Auth. Person, Near Saras Transport, Backside Mame Da Dhaba, Workshop Chowk, Jalandhar City.
3. M/s Videocon Industries Limited, Through its Auth. Person, Registered Office:14 KM Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Village Chittegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad (Maharashtra)- 431105.
4. M/s Videocon Industries Limited, Through its Auth. Person, Corporate Office/Head Office: Fort House, 2nd Floor, 221, Dr. D. N. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001.
5. M/s Videocon Industries Limited, Through its Auth. Person, Corporate Office (Marketing, Service & Support), 296, Udyog Vihar Phase-II, Gurgaon, (Haryana)
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Mehta, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. S. Qaumi & Ms. Shveta, Adv. Counsels for OP No.1.
OPs No.2 to 5 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant purchased Videocon LED 40” Smart TV from OP No.1, dealer of OPs No.3 to 5, vide Invoice No.1423 dated 27.06.2017 for sum of Rs.36,000/-. At the time of purchase of said LED, OP No.1 given 1 year + 2 years extended warranty as per the warranty policy of OPs No.3 to 5 and assured to the complainant that the employee of OPs NO.2 to 5 visited the hosue of the complainant and installed the LED at house and informed about all the functions of the LED. That the OPs No.3 to 5 are the manufacturer, marketing, service and support of LED Smart TV and OP No.2 is authorized service centre branch office of OPs No.3 to 5. That after the purchase of said LED, employees of OPs No.2 to 5 visited the house of the complainant and installed the said LED in the house of complainant and assured that they will send the Functions App of LED smart TV on the mobile of the complainant, but thereafter the officials of the OPs did not send the said App despite of the repeated requests made by the complainant. After the installation, the complainant finds that the employee of OPs No.2 to 5 also installed the LED in wrong angel. That after two weeks from the date of installation, the said LED started giving major problems i.e. Humming sound, speakers problem and the main problem as after every 15-20 minutes the said LED giving huge unaffordable noise even after switch off the LED. The picture and sound quality of the LED was not satisfactory and become totally useless for the complainant. That as per the assurance made by the OPs as well as warranty period, the complainant immediately approached to OPs. After 3-4 days from the lodging of said complaint, mechanic of OPs came to the house of the complainant and checked the LED and told that some parts of the LED have to be changed and left the house of the complainant without made any repair by saying that they will come on next day. But they did not come to do the repair. After giving the second complaint by the complainant, the mechanic came to the house of the complainant and checked the LED and told that some parts of the LED have to be changed and left the house of the complainant without made any repair by saying that they will come within 2-3 days and bring the LED in service centre, but thereafter they did not come to bring the same. Thereafter, the complainant gave 3-4 complaints from time to time, but OPs did not bother the complaint of the complainant. On different-different dates i.e. on 16.12.2017, 10.01.2017 and 12.01.2018, the complainant lodged the complaint, but OPs failed to solve the problem of the complainant. That thereafter on 28.02.2018, the complainant also sent emails to the OPs and also lodged a complaint to the OPs, but the OPs did not bother the request. That thereafter on 21.03.2018, 22.03.2018 and 26.03.2018 and till today the complainant lodged so many complaints to the OPs and the complaint Reference No.JAL1612170009 given by the OPs to the complainant regarding the complaints of LED is still pending and not resolved by the OPs and the OPs did not bother the complaints of the complainant and till today did not remove the said manufacturing defect in the LED. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 28.08.2018, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the invoice value i.e. 36,000/- alongwith Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. That the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against OP No.1. The complaint has been filed to harass the answering OP. That the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant is not the consumer of answering OP. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the LED by the complainant for a sum of Rs.36,000/- with one year + two years extended warranty, is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OPs No.3 to 5 filed their separate joint written reply and contested the complaint by stating that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been initiated in respect to Videocon Industries Ltd., by an order of the Hon;’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 06.06.2018 under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). By the said order, Mr.Anuj Jain, has been appointed as the Insolvency Resolution Process with effect from 08.06.2018. It is further submitted that on commencement of CIRP against the company, moratorium under Section 14 of IBC is imposed by the Hon’ble NCLT, Mumbai Bench, whereby the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the Company including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority is stayed. Accordingly, all recovery proceedings, legal disputes and claims against the Company stands stayed during the CIRP period.
4. After filing the reply by OPs No.3 to 5, they failed to appear in the Commission and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte.
5. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
6. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
7. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the Videocon LED on 27.06.2017 from OP No.1, but the same was installed by the team of OPs No.2 to 5 wrongly with the result the LED started giving problems i.e. humming sound, speakers problem and after every 15-20 minutes the said LED started giving huge unaffordable noise even after switching off the LED. Despite the complaints to the OPs number of time, the issue of the complainant regarding the problems in LED was not redressed and he has sought the refund of his invoice values alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
9. The OP No.1 has admitted that the LED TV was purchased from the OP No.1, but he has denied that the complainant ever made complaint to him. It has been alleged that the complainant purchased the LED TV to his satisfaction and now the dealership of OP No.1 has ended as the Videocon Industries Ltd. has been declared insolvent and the insolvent proceedings are going on. He has further alleged that he is not at all liable for any manufacturing defect.
10. The OPs No.3 to 5 have alleged that as per the Order passed by the NCLT, the parallel proceedings against the company are stayed, therefore no proceedings can be initiated or continued against the OPs No.3 to 5
11. As per record, OPs No.3 to 5 were proceeded against exparte, but the reply filed by them show that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy proceedings are pending against the OPs No.3 to 5 and as per Section 14 of the IBC i.e. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, the parallel proceedings by the debtors are barred, it includes the civil suits and executions. However, the responsibility of the OPs No.3 to 5 has not been extinguished as per the Order passed by the NCLT i.e. Ex.OP-2. The assets of the Debtor have been stopped to be liquidated until the Insolvency process is completed. It has been observed that supply of essential goods or services to the Corporate Debtor shall not be suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period. This order was passed on 06.06.2018. The complainant has purchased the LED on 27.06.2017 that is much prior to the passing of the order by NCLT. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs No.3 to 5. The OP No.2 is the service centre of the OPs No.3 to 5. They are the service providers. The OP No.1 is the dealer of OPs No.3 to 5. As per EX.C-2, the warranty of the above said LED was three years including two years additional warranty. The LED was purchased on 27.06.2017 and as per allegations of the complainant, the problem arose within two weeks of its purchase, meaning thereby that the problem occurred within the warranty period. Ex.C-3 shows that the complainant has made complaints to the OPs by way of email on 28.02.2018 in which he has categorically stated that in the last seven months, he has moved 12 complaints to the company regarding the problem in LED. In reply to the above email on 01.03.2018, the OPs nowhere denied the receipt of complaints rather they have assured the best possible solution of the problem, but even thereafter no action was taken. The complaints were moved prior to the order passed by the NCLT. The grouse by the complainant was also raised prior to the order passed by the NCLT. Therefore, these proceedings are not barred as alleged by the OPs No.3 to 5. Though the OP No.1 has alleged that his dealership has ended, but it does not mean that the responsibility of OP No.1 has also ended. It was his responsibility to provide the proper article to the purchaser, who is also the consumer. He was supposed to provide good services to the customers. It has been alleged that the complainant purchased the LED as per his satisfaction. The outer look of the product cannot depict any defect in the product in the showroom, therefore mere seeing the product in the showroom does not mean that he was satisfied with the working of the product. The complainant has suffered a lot, but his request has not been paid any heed by the OPs. Thus, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs and all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the mental torture and the tension suffered by the complainant as he purchased the LED for his enjoyment, but instead of enjoying the benefits of LED, he has suffered mental tension and harassment and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
12. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the price of the LED TV i.e. Rs.36,000/- to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.8000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. 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 Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj
03.02.2022 Member Member President
