Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 336.
Instituted on : 04.06.2021.
Decided on : 21.05.2024.
Anand Kumar Age 47 years, s/o Sh. Ajit Singh R/o Village Jassia Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Namastey India Electronics Shop No. 5A, Ist & 2nd Floor, Palika Bazaar, Rohtak.
- Havells India Limited Registered Office: 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001(INDIA) through its Manager customer care.
- Corporate Office: QRG Towers, 2D, Sector-126, Expressway, Uttar Pradesh, Noida-201304 through its Manager.
- HARIOM REFERIGRATION Hariom 48, PALIKA BAZAR Rohtak Pincode:-124001 through its Manager
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Wazir Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Parmod Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
Opposite party No.1 & 4 exparte.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a LLOYD Smart LED 41" Model No. L40S vide invoice no. 74 dated 18/11/2017 for Rs.34500/- from the opposite party No.1. At the time of purchasing the said LED, respondent no.1 gave a written warranty of five years. After few months of purchase, some technical and manufacturing fault arose in the said Smart LED and complainant faced difficulty in seeing the picture. The pictures were seen blurred after ‘power on’ the LED. Regarding the alleged issue, complainant registered a complaint on the toll free number of LLoyd company on dated 12/11/2020 and Mr. Sophic attended the complaint telephonically and provided complaint no.1211207094453. On the next day authorized service provider of the company approached the complainant and checked out the whole smart LED and after repairing, he said that “LED is OK now’ and demanded Rs.500/- as service charge. The alleged demand of service charges is illegal as the product was within warranty period. On the next day of repair, when family member of the complainant tried to switch on the said LED, it did not turn on because the defect was not sort out by the authorized service provider of the company. The complainant again contacted the service provider who along with another man came and after checking the LED, they replaced the damaged card with new one but the LED was not in working condition as the defect was not properly removed by the technician. The complainant again contacted the opposite parties on dated 20/11/2020 but despite repeated repairs, the defect of LED could not be removed by the opposite parties. There is manufacturing/technical defect in the alleged LED, which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repeated repairs. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of LED alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchasing the LED and also to pay Rs.100000/- on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in the relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no.1 & 4 did not receive back either served or unserved and therefore, after expiry of statutory period of one month, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.12.2021 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in preliminary objections of their reply has submitted that in this case, the complainant has not presented any primary evidence such as expert opinion report to support his contentions of manufacturing defect in the impugned product. No manufacturing defect can be alleged in the absence of any expert opinion report. It is further submitted that as per records of OP Company TV had 3 years warranty whereas the complainant is claiming 5 year warranty which must be proved by the complainant by way of documentary evidence. Further, it is submitted that as on date the TV is out of warranty. Opposite Party has never denied service to the complainant and is always ready and willing to resolve the issue subject to warranty terms and conditions. The OP Company has attended all calls of the complainant and provided its services. Further, as per visit of the technician of OP Company at the premises of the complainant with respect to the call dated 25-02-21, the impugned product was working in "OK" condition but customer refused to pay the service charges which are payable when the product becomes out of warranty. On subsequent complaint by the complainant on 22-04-21, the technician/representative of the OP Company once again made a visit at customer's place, but customer again refused to pay service charges and did not allow technician to check the impugned product. Hence, the calls were cancelled in CRM system. The complainant has used the impugned product without any interruption/complaint for a period of about 3 years i.e. since 18/11/2017. Thus, no manufacturing defect can be alleged or proved in the product. On merits, it is submitted that product is out of warranty and the service charges are payable after the warranty period. The complainant has not presented any primary evidence such as expert opinion report to support his contentions of any manufacturing defect in the impugned product. No manufacturing defect can be alleged in the absence of any expert opinion report. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW6 and closed his evidence on 17.05.2022. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 10.02.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that he purchased an LED from the opposite party No.1 on 18.11.2017 with 5 years warranty. The defects appeared in the alleged LED within warranty period but the opposite parties charged the service charges from the complainant. It is further contended that the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repairs and as such there is manufacturing defect in the alleged LED. To prove the same he has placed on record copy of bill/cash memo Ex.CW1 and copies of complaints Ex.CW3 to Ex.CW6. On the other hand contention of opposite party No.2 & 3 is that the product was having warranty of 3 years only and the opposite parties are entitled to charge service charges after the expiry of warranty period. It is further contended that no technical expert report has been placed on record to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the LED in question.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.
As per bill Ex.CW1 issued by the opposite party no.1 on dated 18.11.2017, it is written by the opposite party No.1 manually that ‘5 year warranty’. On the other hand opposite party No.2 & 3 have placed on record warranty scheme Ex.R1, as per which the warranty scheme starting from 1st November 2017 is ‘3 years complete warranty on all LED TV Models’. Meaning thereby company had given only three years warranty on the LED TV Models of LLOYD w.e.f. November 2017. But the opposite party no.1 on its own mentioned 5 years warranty on the bill to promote his sale. It is also observed that as per the copy of SMSs placed on record by the complainant Ex.CW3 to Ex.CW6, there was defect in the alleged LED, which appeared on 12.11.2020 i.e. within three years of the purchase and thereafter defects appeared on 12.12.2020, 25.02.2021 and dated 22.04.2021. But the defects could not be removed properly by the opposite parties. On the other hand opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party No.1 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite party No.1 stands proved. Hence there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the price of LED after deducting 40% depreciation on it i.e. Rs.20700/-(Rs.34500/- less 40%), as the complainant has used the LED in question uninterruptedly for about 3 years.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.20700/-(Rupees twenty thousand and seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.06.2021 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the LED in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making the payment by opposite party no.1.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.2024.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
