Delhi

North

CC/18/2019

MAHESH NARESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. JUNEJA ELECTRICALS - Opp.Party(s)

Z. AHMED

21 Nov 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No:18/2019

In the matter of:

 

Mahesh Naresh

S/o Sh. Naresh

H. No.80/3, Gali No.3,

Ramesh Tyagi Colony,

Jharoda, Delhi.                                  …                          Complainant

 

Vs

 

M/s Juneja Electricals

Through its Proprietor

7679-B, Clock Tower,

Near Amba Cinema,

Subzi Mandi,

Delhi-110007.                                     …                          Opposite Party No.1

 

 

M/s Intex Technology India Pvt. Ltd.

Managing Director/General Manager,

D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area,

Phase-II,

New Delhi-110020                              …                          Opposite Party No.2

 

ORDER

21/11/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

1. the complainant purchased a Intex LED Model M SF4304SPIT vide invoice no.3762 dated 15.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.27,500/- from the opposite party no.1 who is authorized dealer of the opposite party no.2 who  is manufacturer of the product. The copy of the tax invoice has been filed with the complaint.
2. from the date of purchase, the said LED was not properly working as a line was appearing on the screen continuously and wi-fi was also not functional and thereafter, the complainant made the complaint vide complaint no. 8111690010223 and representative of the opposite party no.2 visited and changed the card of the said LD, but the problem was not sorted out. The OP-2 has given false assurance that the company shall change the above said LED but till date, the above said LED was not changed by the opposite party no.2 and they have also not provided job sheet to the complainant.
3. Thereafter, the opposite parties continued giving false assurances to the complainant that they will change the defective LED with new LED.
4. The opposite party no.1 had advised to the complainant to lodge another complaint to the opposite party no.2 regarding the problem of the said LED and thereafter, the complainant again on 11.01.2019 lodged another complaint vide reference no 9011090010535 and on the same day, another representative also visited the house of the complainant to rectify the problem of the said LED, but he could not rectify the said problem of the LED and assured that he will report the matter to the company to change the said LED with a new LED as soon as possible but till date the OP-2 has neither rectified the complaint nor provided job sheet to the complainant.
5. Since the date of purchase of the said LED, the opposite parties have not fulfilled their guarantees and assurances as the said LED was not properly working after the purchase of the said LED and the complainant regularly made complaints to the opposite party no.1 and 2 about his complaint of screen problem and Wifi problem. The said LED is having manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase. The complainant has continuously made effort through phone and by personal visits to the opposite parties but all the efforts of the complainant went in vain.
6. The complainant has suffered great mental pain, agony and physical harassment due to the above negligent act of the opposite parties and unsatisfactory services which cannot be compensated in terms of money but the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from both the above opposite parties for physical mental harassment and financial loss etc. to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh, besides, the amount of Rs.27500/- cost of the said LED along with interest 18% per annum and change the product.
7. the opposite parties have committed the said act and conduct deliberately and intentionally to harass the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service, gross unfair trade practice and malpractices to harass the consumer.

 

2.       Therefore, the complaint has been filed praying to pass the following orders to:

1. direct the OPs, jointly and severally, to replace the said LED with a new one or refund the amount paid for purchase of the said LED and also make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum for mental harassment agony caused on account of their deficient service, breach of contract and breach of trust to the Complainant;
2. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.21,000/;
3. Any other order/relief that this Hon’ble Commission deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

3.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response, both the OPs have filed their reply which are discussed below:-

Reply of OP-1

The opposite party no.1 is the authorized dealer of the opposite party no.2 and sell the product manufactured by the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 is the manufacture of the alleged LED and the opposite party no.1 is nothing to do with the present case as the opposite party no.1 has sold the alleged product to the complainant in a good condition and there is no fault and negligence on the part of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 has provided proper and fast service to the complainant time to time and given full assistance to the complainant.

Reply of OP-2

1. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is prima facie no case against the opposite party-2. The complainant out of pure greed and nefarious intentions has filed the aforesaid complaint and is wrongfully trying to extract compensation from the Opposite party without any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party.
2. The opposite party have not violated any terms of warranty.  They have provided their services without any delay or negligence whenever asked by the complainant who was approached the opposite party after the one year of the purchase of the said product. Hence the complaint is liable to be a dismissed with exemplary cost against the complainant.

c)       The Complainant has also failed to state as to how the cause of action arose in its favour for filing the present complaint against the OP in the absence of any deficiency on its part. The Complainant is guilty of 'suggestiofals and 'suppressioveri' in as much as the Complainant has deliberately concealed various material facts from this Commission, so on this score alone.

d)       The OP-2 has also filed parawise reply to the allegation as under:-

1. The contents of para no 1 to 3 of the complaint under reply are denied for want of knowledge as there is no proof of making request of the same.
2. the contents of the para no 4 of the complaint are wrong, false and denied as there was no defect in the said disputed LED and the same was in good condition and whatever defects were raised by the complainant, were occurred only and only due to mishandling of the product. The complainant had already mentioned in the complainant that the he was approached the Opposite party after the one year of the purchase of the said product, hence, there is no question of manufacturing defect in the said LED. The Technician and Executive visited to customer place and technical team confirmed as panel was damaged, but customer has not accepted the same. It is stated in Shivprasad Paper Industries vs. Senior Machinery Company 1 (2006) CPJ 92 NC that "It is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be order to be replaced if can be repaired".
3. The contents of para no 5 & 8 same as in reply of the complaint under reply are denied for want of knowledge as there is no proof of making request of the same. Actually customer is not willing to keep LED anymore & intentionally escalating his case. OP-2 provide warranty coverage & support. There is no such policy of the OP to replace such LED. The complainant is not using the LED in the proper manner and has put this complaint with mala-fide intentions.
4. The contents of para no 9 of the complaint under reply are denied for want of knowledge as there is no proof of making request of the same. The opposite party have not violated any terms of their warranty service. They have provided services without any delay or negligence whenever asked by the complainant.

 

4.       The Complainant has also filed rejoinder to the replies of both the OPs refuting the averments of the OPs and reiterating the allegations levelled in the complaint. The Complainant has also filed evidence by way of affidavit. However, Evidences by way of Affidavit have not been filed by OPs-1&2 despite imposition of cost of Rs.500/- each to OP-1&2 vide order dated 21.08.2019. Last & final opportunity was also given to OP-1&2 to file their respective evidences by way of affidavit on 11.10.2019 subject to further cost of Rs.500/- each on OP-1&2. Thus, total cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) was to be deposited by both OPs in Consumer Legal Aid and proof of deposit of cost was be filed on record alongwith evidence by way of Affidavit by OP-1&2 on the date of hearing. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 11.10.2019, neither the OPs appeared nor did file any proof of payment of cost, their right to file evidence was closed. Thereafter, till the date of hearing of argument, none appeared to represent the OPs.

 

5.       Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence available on records and it has been observed that the Complainant has filed copies of records of SMS received from OP-2 regarding “complaint of faults” lodged with the OP-2. The text messages for the dates of 17.11.2018, 13.12.2018, 17.12.2018, 10.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 are sufficient to prove that the Complainant was raising complaints of defects in TV with the OP-2 since beginning but the OP-2 in its reply has clearly denied this fact stating that the Complainant has never approached him about the rectification of defects. However, the OP-2 has also admitted in its written statement/reply that its technician had confirmed that its panel was damaged due to mishandling of the product but the OP-2 has failed to provide any evidence as to how the product was mishandled. The SMS/text messages relating to complaints lodged by the Complainant with OP-2 is also on record and the OP-2 was also supposed to file the job sheets proving rectification of the defects after receipt of this complaint but it had completely failed to do so. The OP-2 has further stated that the Complainant has approached him after one year of the purchase whereas the copy of the bil clearly indicates that the product was purchased on 15.11.2018 and the Complainant started lodging complaint on 17.11.2018 followed by complaints lodged on 13.12.2018, 17.12.2018, 10/11.01.2019 which contradicts the statement of the OP-2. It is on record that the complaints were lodged within two months of purchase. Since the product was having problem since beginning, the OP-2 was liable to replace the product immediately but it failed to do so and the Complainant, who has spent the money to enjoy luxury of TV, was deprived of enjoying the same. It has also been noted that the Complainant has already purchased another new TV of Sony Brand and the defective TV is lying idle with him.

6.       In view of these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP-2 (M/s Intex Technology India Pvt. Ltd.) in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. This deficiency in service, on the part of OP-2, has also caused mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant for which the OP is also liable to pay the compensation.  However, no deficiency in service has been observed on the part of OP-1.

7.       In this case, the judgment in the matter of Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. [FA No.359/2012  decided on 11.02.2014] passed by Hon’ble SCDRC, Delhi is relevant in this case wherein it has been held that:-

“15. This Commission on number of occasions have reiterated that in the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning, it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product and if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous.”

8.       Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP-2 (M/s Intex Technology India Pvt. Ltd.) to pay Rs.27,500/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the Complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 24.01.2019 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP-2 is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment caused.

9.       It is clarified that if the amount awarded in para 8 above,  is not paid by the OP-2 to the Complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the entire awarded amount from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

10.     The Complainant shall also return defective LED/TV to the OP-2 after receipt of the payment as directed at Para 8.

11.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                  ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                              HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

                                      Member                                                                                   Member      

                                  DCDRC-1 (North)                                                           DCDRC-1 (North)

         

                               DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                   President 

                                       DCDRC-1 (North)