J U D G E M E N T
1. The complainant filed the complaint against the OPs U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant purchased Onida CTV from M/s. Top Ten Electronic Shoppe, Big Splash building, Shop No.56, GRD 1st floor, Sector No.17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 on 6.2.2010 and the OP-1 issued warranty for 4 years from 8.8.2011 to 7.8.2015 for the purchased CTV. The said TV suddenly stopped working without any reason. Hence, the complainant contacted the OP-1 who is the authorized agent on 8.8.2011 for repair or replacement as it is under warranty period. But the OP-1 refused to repair the same without assigning any reason. The complainant purchased the CTV on assurance of the company’s service anywhere in India. The OP-1 being the authorized dealer despite having issued the warranty for 4 years refused to repair the same. The complainant approached the OPs several times for repair of the said CTV and on 15.6.2013 they refused to repair it. The OP-2 asked the complainant to approach the OP-1 stating that it was the authorized agent to look after the local complaints. This caused mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, he got issued legal notice to the OPs which was served on them. In reply the OP-1 asked the complainant to approach the OP-2 for redressal of his complaint. But the OP No.1 is duty bound having issued the warranty to wait for 15 days to enable it to collect information from the sales service provider and assured to redress his grievance. But the OP-2 failed to comply with the assurance given. The attitude of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The OP-1 filed the written version stating that it is the issuing office for extended warranty by collecting EWC amount to be paid to Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd., i.e OP-2. All the allegations made in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted, are denied. Anything stated in the complaint contrary to or inconsistent with what is stated in the written statement be deemed to be denied expressly. The content of para-1 of the complaint is a matter of record and hence, do not require any comment. The averments made in para-2 of the complaint may be true. It is true that the OP-1 had issued warranty for 4 years from 8.8.2011 to 7.8.2015 for Onida CTV. The averments made in para-3 of the complaint are all false. The OP-1 is not the authorized service center of Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The OP-1 is only issuing office for extended warranty card. It is false to say that on 8.8.2011, the complainant approached the OP-1 for repair or replacement of TV and the OP-1 refused to do the same without assigning any reason. The OP-1 is not authorized dealer nor authorized service center of the OP-2. The complainant has not at all approached the OP-1. It is true that the OP-1 issued extended warranty on 8.8.2011. It is not believable that on the same day the complainant came for repair of the CTV. As regards para-4 of the complaint, it may be true that the complainant purchased the Onida CTV on the assurance of the company’s service anywhere in India. It is false to say that the OP-1 being the authorized dealer despite having issued warranty refused to repair the same. The OP-1 has not at all breached the terms and conditions of the warranty, because the complainant has not approached the OP-1. As regards para-5 of the complaint, it is false to say that the complainant approached the OP-1 several times and the OP-1 denied the service or to repair the said CTV on 15.6.2013 without assigning any reason. It is false to say that the OP-2 intimated the complainant that the OP-1 being the authorized agent has to look after the local complaints. The averments made in para-6 and 7 of the complaint are false. The cause of action had not arisen to file the complaint against the OP-1. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as he has approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts. The averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and made with malafide intent. Hence, the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. The OP-2 filed the written version stating that it is the service provider for Onida. All the allegations made in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted, are denied. Anything stated in the complaint contrary to or inconsistent with what is stated in the written statement be deemed to be denied expressly. The averments made in para-2 of the complaint are true. The averments made in para-3 of the complaint are all false. As regards para-4 of the complaint, it is false to say that the OP-1 being the authorized dealer despite having issued warranty refused to repair the said CTV. The averments made in para-5, 6 and 7 of the complaint are false. As per the instructions given in the extended warranty, the customer of Onida TV is advised to follow certain guidelines and if the customer failed to follow the guidelines definitely the equipment will not be in a condition to see the clear picture. The extended warranty covers only repair and not replacement of the TV with new one or for refund of the amount paid for TV. The complainant has not approached the OPs and only on the basis of issuing extended warranty he has filed the false complaint. The OP-2 is bound to repair the TV, as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty, but the complainant has not approached them. To establish his complaint averments the complainant has not produced a single piece of document like job sheet, complaint number, written complaint etc. However, if the complainant require to repair his Onida CTV he can file fresh complaint through 24 X 7 helpline and they undertake to repair the same. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as relief claimed is not as per the extended warranty. Hence, the complaint be dismissed.
5. The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as PW-1 and got marked 06 documents as Exh.P-1 to Exh.P-6. The OPs as their evidence, filed their respective affidavits, which are marked as RW-1 and RW-2.
6. The written argument is filed by the complainant.
7. The points that arise for our consideration are;
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs towards him, as alleged in the complaint?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3) What order?
8. The findings on the above points are as under;
1) In the Negative.
2) In the Negative.
3) As per final order for the following;
:: REASONS ::
9. Point No.1 :
At the outset on perusal of the complaint, it is found that the complainant has not specifically mentioned as to what was the defect in the CTV purchased by him. As contended by the OPs, the complaint in this regard is vague and baseless. The complainant has not produced any material before this Forum to show that on 8.8.2011 and 15.6.2012 he approached the OP-1 for repair or replacement of the CTV purchased by him. If he had approached the OPs on the said dates definitely there would have been some documents to that effect like job card etc. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs cannot be attributed unless there is some evidence to that effect. Further as per the complainant himself, he purchased Onida CTV from one M/s. Top Ten Electronic’s Shop, Mumbai. He has not mentioned as to who is the manufacturer of the said T.V. He has not made the said Top Ten Electronic’s Shop and the manufacturer of the TV as parties to this proceeding. As the complainant asked for refund of the money he has paid for TV purchased by him or to replace it, making the seller and manufacturer of the TV as parties to this proceedings is very important. As they are not made parties, the complaint filed is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Besides this as per the OP-1, it is only the issuance office for extended warranty and is not authorized service center or authorized dealer of OP-2 and therefore is not bound to look after the complaint of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any material to show that OP-1 is the authorized service center for the Onida TV. Therefore, the OP-1 cannot be held responsible for service of the CTV purchased by the complainant. As per the OP-2, it is bound to repair the TV as per the terms and conditions of the extended warranty, but the complainant has not approached them and if he approached them with specific complaints they are ready to set right the same. As already observed above, the complainant has not produced any material to show that he had approached OP-2 with specific complaints in the working of the CTV purchased by him. Therefore, the OP-2 cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service on their part.
Considering all the aspects discussed above, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, this point is answered in Negative.
10. Point No.2 :
As the complainant has failed to prove this case and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, he is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly, this point is answered in Negative.
11. Point No.3 :-
As per order below;
:: ORDER ::
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
There is no order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 7th day of December 2013)
