DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.451 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  29.07.2016                                                Date of decision   :  11.07.2017

Vinod Raturi son of Jagdish Parshad Raturi, resident of House No.745/C, Dashmesh Nagar, Nayagaon, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                                ….Complainant

                                Versus

1.     M/s. Phillips Electronics Pvt. Limited through its Director/Partner/Manager, Plot No.711, Sector 82, Mohali.

2.     M/s.Ashoka Enterprises through its Director/Manager/ Proprietor, Shop No.4-5, Naya Gaon, District Mohali, SAS Nagar.

                                                                …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri N.S. Jagdeva, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                Complainant Vinod Raturi had filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

                The complainant purchased Phillips LED 39 FFL 3030/V7 K11 3900 Series T.F. from OP No.2, which is manufactured by OP No.1, for an amount of Rs.28,500/- vide invoice dated 08.11.2015. The complainant got the LED financed from Bajaj Finlease. At the time of purchase, OP No.2 had given two years warranty for any problem, if accrued from the date of its sale and that if any problems in the LED during this period, the OP would change or repaired the same free from the authorised service centre or executive of the company.  After five months of its purchase, the LED started developing internal problems i.e. lines on the screens and the complainant contacted OP No.2 for repair or change. The OP No.2 asked the complainant to contact OP No.1. On this the complainant contacted OP No.1 and the executive of OP No.1 visited the complainant and after inspecting and checking the LED informed that the internal part of the LED has been damaged. However, the executive of the OP No.1 refused to change the part and further refused to change the LED. He demanded Rs.20,000/- for repair of the LED. The complainant contacted the OPs for repair or replacement of the LED but the OPs have not resolved his grievance. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 04.07.2017 requesting them to change/repair the LED within 15 days  from the receipt of notice but till date nothing has been received from the OPs.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to change the LED in question; to pay him Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             The complaint has been contested by the OPs by filing reply by way of affidavit in which it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, the OPs have denied that the LED has two years warrant but stated that one year warranty was there subject to conditions mentioned in the warranty card.  The first complaint from the complainant was received on 07.06.2016 and the engineer of the OPs visited the complainant. The engineer thoroughly inspected the set and found that a panel was broken which was broken during its negligent use and hit by some object, hence is not covered within warranty. As such the engineer gave the estimate of Rs.18,000/- which was disapproved by the complainant.  Thus, denying deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; postal receipts Ex.C-2 and C-3. In rebuttal the counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Shiv Dhanda, Area Service Manager Ex.OP-1/1; copies of brochure Ex.OP-1; photographs of broken panel Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3; job cards Ex.OP-4 and OP-5.

5.             The complainant has argued that the OP has not repaired/changed the LED despite making various calls/visits to them. He has argued that the LED is within warranty and as per the assurance given by OP No.2 the LED is to be repaired/changed free of costs. Non repair/change of the LED has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and the complainant has prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the LED has one year warranty. He has argued that the LED panel was broken which part is not covered under warranty terms and conditions. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written  arguments of the OPs as well as oral arguments of the parties. The OPs have produced EN User Manual Ex.OP-1 and the warranty clause contained therein is reproduced below:

“No components are user serviceable. Do not open or remove covers to the inside of the product. Repairs may only be done by Phillips Service Centre and official repair shops. Failure to do shall void any warranty stated or implied.

        Any operation expressly prohibited in this manual or any adjustments and assembly procedure not recommended or authorised in this manual shall void the warranty.”

                On the complaint of the complainant, the engineers of the OPs checked the LED and found that its panel was broken due to negligent use and hit by some object. The engineer informed the complainant that it is not covered within warranty and the complainant has to pay for this to which the complainant refused.  As per the aforesaid warranty clause, the components are user serviceable. The complainant has to pay for the broken panel. Thus, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 11.07.2017    

                                        (A.P.S.Rajput)                                          President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member