Delhi

North East

CC/423/2014

Shailndra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Videcon Industrial - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.423/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

	Dr. Shailendra Singh R/o V-118 Main Road Vijay Park, Maujpur Delhi 110051	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. Through Managing Director 296, Udyog Vihar, Phase-II Gurgaon, Haryana   Electronic Shoppe (Venture of R.Y.S. Enterprises) A-1, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	13.11.14
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	13.04.18
	DATE OF DECISION:	16.04.18

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

ORDER

1. The complainant had submitted that he had purchased a Videocon TV bearing model no. BCL42FVT from OP2 for an amount of Rs. 38000/- vide bill no. 467 dated 2.4.2011. The complainant has further stated that he was assured by OP2 at the time of purchase that extended warranty for two years besides normal warranty of one year shall be given on this product and as such there would be total warranty of three years uptil 1.4.2014, which would be available to him. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to purchase the product as above. It has been submitted by the complainant that in the month of Feb 2014, the product developed visual problem and as such the same was informed to OPs, who assured that executive of OP1 shall visit the residence of the complainant but nobody visited. Thereafter, the complainant made several calls and lodged telephonic complaint no. DEL1303140332 with OP1 on 13.03.2014,  DEL3103140403 on 31.03.2014 and DEL0404140383 on 04.04.2014. The complainant has reported that one senior executive visited the house on 5.4.2014, who declined to repair the TV stating that the Videocon cannot provide services as extended warranty card is not valid. It has been further stated that due to manufacturing defects, the TV was unusable and meaningless and as such should have been replaced by OPs, which was not done and accordingly, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 9.6.2014 by Speed Post on 15.06.2014 with the request to make the replacement of Videocon TV or to pay a sum of Rs. 38,000/- to complainant but the OP sent a false and frivolously reply thereto. It has been further stated by complainant that due to deficiency in service and delivery of defective product on the part of the OPs, the complainant suffered mental harassment, pain and agony and as such vide the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that he should be compensated by replacement of TV of the same model or Rs. 38,000/- with interest should be refunded to him alongwith Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental torture. Further, he has prayed for order to OPs to pay him an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The complainant has attached copy of retail invoice/ bill purchase no. 467 dated 2.4.11 of the subject TV in question from OP1 manufactured by OP2, certificate of warranty/ 2 years extended warranty issued by OP1 to complainant on behalf of OP2 as three years warranty certificate, legal notice dated 9.6.2014, the reply received by him dated 18.06.2014 alongwith copy of the courier receipt and postal receipt. Besides above, a photocopy of TV set reportedly purchased  by the complainant has also been enclosed.
3. A notice u/s 13 CPA 1986 was issued on 26.11.14 to all the OPs for appearance on 9.1.15. OP1 appeared but OP2 failed to appear and as such proceeded against Ex-parte against vide order dated 12.2.2015.
4. The OP1 in its reply submitted that the product has been utilized by the complainant for around three years and he also refused after sale service and now the complainant is demanding a new product or its price on the pretext of court case. Further, the total warranty of one year expired on 1.4.12 and there is no question of warranty till 1.4.14. Certificate of warranty as claimed by complainant is false and fabricated and therefore, the plea for two years extended warranty is not applicable. Further, OP1 urged that as per clause 3 of terms and conditions of the extended warranty, the same is offered as special promotion and is applicable for LCD / LED TV purchased between 1.9.2010 to 15.11.2010 and thus, the complainant is not entitled to get advantage of warranty after 1.4.2012 since he had not purchased the TV within the special promotion/ offer period. However, the complainant is entitled to get after sale service subject to cost of payment of services charges but the complainant has refused to get after sale service with regard to this product. It has been submitted further by the OP1 that complainant had purchased a new product after due verification and there was no undue influence by OP1 and further an authorized engineer of OP visited the complainant for repairing but the complainant refused to get the repair of the product and demanded unjustified and illegal demand and threatened a court case . It has been further stated by OP1 that as a good corporate policy and providing best services to its customers and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, OP1 is ready to provide repair service of the product in question as per warranty policy and complainant be directed to seek relief in accordance standard warranty policy of OP1. Further, in view of above, there is no deficiency in service and no manufacturing defects make out by complainant and as such above complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost in accordance with u/s 26 of CPA 1986.
5. In the rejoinder the complainant has denied all the contentions / defence / allegation of OP and it has stated that OP1 lured the complainant and thereafter sold the product by giving three years warranty and now OP1 is denying extended warranty. As such, the Forum may  grant relief as claimed in the complaint.
6. The copy of the legal notice dated 9.6.14 sent by complainant to OPs reiterates the points made n the complaint, wherein the OPs were required to attend the complaint immediately by replacing the said TV, failing which necessary action may be taken against the OP in Court of law and OP shall be liable for all costs and consequences resulting there-from. Further the complainant averred that the OP is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards charges for the present legal notice. The OP countered in view of written statement and stated that product was purchased on 2.4.2011 and standard warranty of two years was applicable to those LCD, LED TVs purchased between 1.9.2010 to 15.11.2010 and as such the extended warranty was not applicable in this case. Further, the said certificate is without seal and signature of Videocon authorized dealer and further complainant has produced fabricated documents for getting undue advantages and as such is liable for cheating and fabrication of documents under Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the legal notice should be withdrawn under intimation to OPs. Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP1 was filed wherein most of the points mentioned in written statement were reiterated and it was stated that OP1 is not liable for deficiency in service “or manufacturing defect” and denied any negligence / omission on its part. OP1 reiterated that certificate of warranty was not applicable to the complainant in this case.
7. Written arguments on behalf of OPs were filed, wherein it was submitted that contentions raised by complainant are not maintainable as he is putting all false facts before his Forum and demand raised by him is illegal and against the spirit of natural justice. Further, the product was not purchased within promotional offer period and therefore, the extended warranty is not applicable on the said products. However, the OP2 had provided after sale service as and when required, and OP2 is liable upto the extent as mentioned in warranty policy. In addition the complainant has wrongly implicated OP1 to harass him and also malign its reputation. Further, OP1 argued that it is not answerable for misdeeds of OP2.
8. The complainant had filed written arguments wherein he reiterated the points made in his complaint, rejoinder, affidavit of evidence and stated that when he has taken LCD, the OP2 had assured him that the warranty on LCD had been extended by the company and the Card which was given by OP2, shall be deemed as warranty Card and will be acceptable in any Court of Law as and when any dispute arises between the complainant , OP2 or manufacturing company and when the complainant raised the objection on the said card stating that is upto 2010 , the OP2 assured that six months more period has already been extended by the company as a warranty period and in case the LCD is found damaged or not in working conditions, the company as well as OP2 shall be liable to compensate the complainant. Further the complainant stated that when the senior executive came and checked the TV he didn’t adhere to the demand to change the said TV.
9. A copy of the DD NO. 29PP dated 4.8.2016 PP Old Seelampur and PS Krishna Nagar has been placed on record by the complainant, wherein it is mentioned that he had sought the stamp of the dealer on the warranty card at the given address, but the dealer informed him that it was his old shop which is closed now and he does not have a stamp of said shop. However, if the Court directs him he would do something in this regard but he cannot do anything now as this is a Court matter. The notice of this Forum sent to the complainant on his given address by speed post on  6.11.2017 was also retunred by the postal remarks “After a lot search the house no. could not be located
10. We have heard the arguments of complainant as well as OP1 in the matter and also gone through  evidence putforth by both parties. We understand that the complainant could not prove the extension of warranty as per the warranty card submitted by him because the same is not dated and signed and does not bear any number of issuance. Further, the warranty card doesn’t show any extra payment made by the complainant to the OP towards the extended warranty. The product was used by the complainant for almost three years and by the time it has became dysfunctional, the warranty of one year had already expired. The averments made by the complainant are not supported by documentary evidence.
11. The complainant had used the TV in question for three years without any problem so no manufacturing defect therein can be imputed prime facie. The complainant has not been able to file documentary proof that the subject TV was within valid warranty period when the damaged to it occurred. However, as per his own averments, the TV got damaged after almost three y ears of purchase/ use i.e. the TV was purchased on 2.4.2011 and started giving problems in Feb 2014 as per own admission of complainant. Further the Consumer Protection ACT is based on the maxim “Caveat Emptor” i.e. “Let the buyer beware”. However, in the present case, the complainant despite being a  doctor and an educated person signed on a purported/ so called certificate of warranty/ two years extended warranty given by OP2 without reading its terms and conditions on the same stamped page which as per clause 3 thereof clearly excluded / precluded the complainant from availing any benefit of promotion / offer on purchase of TV by him as it was purchased outside the period of validity of promotional offer i.e. 1.9.2010 to 15.11.2010.
12. Keeping in view above factors, we don’t find merits in the case of complainant of his allegation of deficiency of service against the OPs it clearly appears to be a case for extorting money by misuse of legal remedy under CPA. The complainant is warned from indulging in such frivolous litigation in future. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no cost on either side.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
14. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 16.04.2018)     

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member