Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1232/2012

Manoj Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Nagpal Brothers & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI, DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

CC No: 1232/2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA 

S/O SH. BINDESHWARI PRASAD,

R/O S-135/A, SCHOOL BLOCK, SHAKARPUR,

DELHI-110092.                                        … COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

 

1. M/S NAGPAL BROTHERS

M-13, PALIKA BAZAR,

CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.

 

2. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.

A-31, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA,

DELHI-110044.                                 … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM : SH. POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

      MS. ADARSH NAIN, MEMBER   

                                                            Date of Institution: 20.12..2012

                                                               Date of decision: 31.01.2022

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (in short OP) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act.) thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a LCD TV for Rs.25,000/- vide invoice no. 13453 on 12/06/2012 from OP-1 with one year standard warranty. The complainant further alleged that the 1^st complaint was lodged on 23/08/2012 within one month of its purchase, the defective LCD was received by the service centre on 23/08/2012 vide a receipt. The complainant further alleged that defective LCD was inspected by the authorized service centre of the OP. and the LCD panel was found defective. The OP. No.1 informed that as the panel was defective which was not cover under warranty, it issued an e-mail for the estimate to rectify the problem with cost of Rs.11,187/-. The complainant has filed a complaint before Delhi Mediation Centre in response the OP.No.1 filed a reply dated 10/01/2013 along with standard warranty of the LCD and ready to replacement of LCD after payment of Rs. 7,990/- by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that despite repeated complaints problem with the LCD has not been resolved by the OPs and the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for refund the purchased price of the disputed LCD with  compensation and cost of litigation from the OP`s .

3.       OP-1 was proceeded with ex-party vide order dated 24/02/2014, whereas OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed written statement. In the reply, OP-2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable, it was false, wrong and baseless as such the same is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on their part. OPs further submitted that LCD had been purchased by the complainant on 12/06/2012 from OP-1 and the 1^st complaint was lodged by the complainant on 06/09/2012 as LCD non-working, the same was attended by the technician and it was found that lcd panel was defective. However, upon inspection the LCD was found to be a counterfeited product and not the original or real product of the OP, as the LCD was not covered under warranty, the complainant was given a repair estimate for necessary rectification. However, the complainant being adamant on his part insisted either for free of cost replacement of the LCD with new one or for the refund of the entire cost amount of the LCD and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of OP-2.

5.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of invoice no. 13453 dated 12/06/2012 for purchase of Sony LCD TV Bx350(32")  for Rs.25,000/- and  LCD TV receipt dated 23/08/2012, estimate of LCD TV KLV32BX350/3717876 dated 22/11/2012 of Rs.11,187/- copies of e-mail communications between the parties.

6.       On the other hand on behalf of OP-2 Meena Bose D/O Late Sh. Vinod Jasapara A/R of Sony India Private Ltd., Branch  filed his affidavit which is on the basis of the written statement of OP-2.. 

7.     This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant as well as the defence taken by the OP-2 in the written statement. The case of the complainant has remained consistent. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the complainant. OP-2 admitted the case of the complainant to the effect that the LCD was defective. OP-2 in their written statement admitted that the complainant has lodged  complaint of working problem of the LCD.  The OP-2 also issued standard warranty by an e-mail dated 22/11/2012 and an estimate  of LCD TV KLV32BX350/3717876 dated 22/11/2012 of Rs.11,187/- of the LCD in question.

                   Admittedly the LCD developed defects during the warranty period i.e. within one month of its purchased, therefore plea of the OP No.2 that the complainant has purchased the LCD is not the authorized dealer of the OP-2 and the same are not provided any warranty card to the complainant which proves that the LCD has been purchased by the complainant from a grey market area and the same is not the real product of the OP-2 but a counterfeited product which does not inspire confidence. What is the use of such goods or article if it loses its utility within a period of one month or a period of one year. No trader or the manufacturer can take the shelter under the grab of warranty card if the article or the goods is later on found to be suffering from manufacturing inherent defects.. The objects of the Statute Under The Consumer Protection Act,1986 is to safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufacturers or traders selling such sub-standard or defective goods or against the provider of service who are not providing service and not maintaining the standard of service.

                   In view of aforesaid job card dated 06/09/2012 of the OP-2 one cannot escape from the conclusion because of the suffered from manufacturing defects because of LCD panel of Plasma TV which is outdated from the market and everyone know that LCD/PLASMA TV is out dated TV from LED TV and the Panel is the main component and soul of the LCD TV of working of TV. A consumer is not expected to lodge to complaints of a product frequently unless and until there is some defect in the product. Frequent lodging of complaint about working problem and no picture and sound in the LCD clearly shows that there is some inherent and manufacturing defect in the LCD of the complainant which has not been resolved by the OPs. Accordingly, the OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally are held guilty of deficiency in service.

8.   Accordingly, the OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally are directed as    under:

i)     To refund the cost of LCD TV of Rs. 25,000/- by the OPs to Complainant on its return, if any

ii)       To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.

9.    The above order shall be complied by OP-1 & OP-2 within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order and awarded amount shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1 & OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 9% per annum for the delayed payment. If OP-1 & OP-2 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.     Let a copy of this order be given/sent to each party free of cost as per regulation of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on this 31st  Day of January, 2022.

 

 

 

 

MS.POONAM CHAUDHRY

(PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

                                                          BARIQ AHMAD                                                             

                                                            (MEMBER)