Delhi

North East

CC/244/2018

Smt. Beena Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 244/18

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Beena Devi

W/o Shri Naresh Kumar Panchal

R/o: A-52, Gali No. 7, Mandoli Extension

Mandoli, Delhi-110093                                                                   Complainant

	Versus

1. M/s Shiam Electlronics

D-2/30, Nand Nagri

•  

 

2. M/s Hevells India Ltd.

Corporate Office:

QRG Towers, 2D,

Sector 126, Noida (UP)

(earlier known as Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd.)

 

3. M/s Hevells India Ltd                                                        

Corporate Office:

QRG Towers, 2D,

Sector 126, Noida (UP)

(For and on behalf of Its service centre known as Care
Speed Solution)Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                ORDER RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

28.11.2018 28.03.2022 27.04.2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Lloyed LED TV vide cash memo No. 22683, dated 10.03.15 from Opposite Party No. 1. The LED TV had 1+3 years warranty. Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. is the manufacturer of the said LED TV. Now, the business of all consumer durables of Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. has now been taken over by Havells India Ltd.  The LED TV had gone out of order in the month of August 2015. Complainant made a complaint for the LED TV, the mechanic of Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. service center came to visit the Complainant’s premise for repairing the said LED TV vide job sheet no. 87758 on 05.08.15 and set right the product by replacing its penal. It was submitted by the Complainant that the LED TV again in the month of September 2015 went out of order and Complainant again made a telephonic complaint to the call center of Opposite Party No. 2. The mechanic of Opposite Party No. 3 visited the Complainant’s premises and checked the product he found “panel problem” and collected the LED TV for its repair/replacement vide job sheet no. 2063, dated 25.09.18. The mechanic charged Rs. 300/- from the Complainant for cartage of the said LED TV. It was also submitted by the Complainant that the mechanic of Opposite Party No. 3 came after three days along with the said LED TV without repaired and told the Complainant that LED TV was got repaired by her (Complainant) from some outside mechanic.

2.         Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Parties to repair the LED TV as per the terms of cash memo dated 10.03.2015 or in the alternative replace with a new LED TV, Complainant also prayed for refund of amount of Rs. 300/- which was illegally charged by Opposite Party No. 3, Complainant claimed Rs. 25,000/- compensation for mental and physical harassment. It is also prayed by the Complainant to award Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation charges.

3.         Complainant has attached copy of cash memo of payment, copy of Job Sheet and copy of charged a cash receipt of Rs. 300/-.

4.         Notice was sent to OP1 but none has appeared on behalf of OP1 despite service on 21.12.18. As per order sheet dated 24.07.19 OP1 defence struck off.

Case of Opposite Party No 2 & 3

             5.        The Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It was stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 in their written statement that the business of all consumer durables of Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd. has now been taken over by Havells India Ltd. Now, Havells India Ltd. is replying on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 in the present complaint. It has raised the preliminary objection that the Complainant had made false, incorrect, baseless, malicious, malafide, wholly misconceived and groundless. It was submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 that Complainant has admitted that Opposite Party No. 3 returned the LED TV without repairing but rest of the contents are false fake and emphatically denied.  It was also denied that Opposite Party No. 3 returned the LED TV on a wholly false pretext that the said LED TV was got repaired by the Complainant from some outside mechanic when the technician visited the premises of the Complainant. It was found that the panel was not matching the original panel of LED TV. Therefore, the warranty of the LED TV panel became void as per terms and conditions of warranty policy. “The warranty shall stand automatically terminated in the event of the said unit being serviced, repaired, installed, de-installed, re-intalled or otherwise attended to by any person or organization or agency or by the said purchaser himself other than the authorized representative of the company”. It was also prayed by the Opposite Party No. 2 & Opposite Party No. 3 that the complaint of the Complainant be dismissed with exemplary cost in favour of the Opposite Parties as against the Complainant.

6.        The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party No. 2 & Opposite Party No. 3 wherein he has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7.           The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint. She has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of cash memo alongwith other documents, copy of Job sheet and copy of charged receipt of Rs. 300/- for cartage of the said LED TV.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3

8. In order to prove their case Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 have filed affidavit of Shri Harsh Aggarwal, S/o Shri P.C. Aggarwal, General Manager-Legal, Autorized Representative of Opposite Party (Havells India Ltd.) having their corporate office at QRG Towers, 2D, Sector-126, Noida (U.P)-201304.

Arguments and Conclusions

9.        We have perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. From the perusal of records, it is an admitted case that Complainant had purchased LED TV from Opposite Party No. 1. It is also admitted fact that the said LED TV was manufactured by Lloyed Electric & Engineering. Ltd. which has been taken up by Hevells India Ltd. It is also admitted fact that on the complaint of Complainant the engineer of Opposite Party No. 3 visited the house of the Complainant and inspected the LED TV. It is also an admitted fact that the said LED TV was taken by the said engineer to the service center of Opposite Party No. 3. It is also an admitted fact that the said LED TV was returned to Complainant by Opposite Party No. 3 without repairing any work.

       10.           The case of the Complainant is that LED TV was within the warranty/guarantee period and despite the said warranty/guaranty period Opposite Party No. 3 did not carry out the necessary repair of the said LED TV. On the other hand the case of Opposite Party No. 2  & 3 is that the Complainant had got repaired her LED TV from some outside agency and on inspection it was found that panel of LED TV of Complainant did not match the original panel of the LED TV. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 that the guarantee/warranty became void as the Complainant had got repaired her LED TV from outside.

11.      Now, the question is that whether the guarantee/warranty had become void or that whether the Complainant had got repaired her LED TV from outside. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 is that it was observed by their engineer that the panel of the LED TV of the Complainant did not match the original panel of the LED TV. It is important to note that Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 did not file the affidavit of the said engineer to prove this plea. Even they have not mentioned the name of the said engineer. No document has been produced on record by Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 showing that the panel of the LED TV of the Complainant did not match the original panel of the LED TV. Therefore, under these circumstances in our considered opinion the defence taken by Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 cannot be believed. Hence, the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3 have failed to show that the Complainant had got her LED TV repaired from some outside agency.

12.      In view of the above discussion the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to replace the LED TV of the Complainant with a new LED TV of the same kind and worth. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is allowed to the Complainant on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges etc. Ordered accordingly.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                                              (Surinder Kumar Sharma)      

       (Member)                                                                (President)