Delhi

North

RBT/CC/236/2022

RATNESH DIXIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVEEN ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD.& ANR - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jul 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

RBT/Consumer Complaint No.:236/2022

DCDRC-V CC No.485/2018

 

Sh. Ratnesh Dixit

S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Dixit

575 Ist floor,

Bhai Parmanand Colony (West)

New Delhi-110009.                                                                       …                          Complainant

                                                          Vs

Naveen Electrotech Pvt. Ltd.

Through its M.D./ General Manager,

H-4/4, Model Town-II

Delhi-110009.                                                        …                          Opposite Party No.1

 

Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd.

Through its M.D./C.E.O./ Authorised Signatory,

Office at:

3^rd floor, Building No.10, Tower-B,

Phase-II, DLF Cyber City,

Gurugram-122002.                                                  …                          Opposite Party No.2

 

ORDER

10/07/2024

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:

 

1. The Complainant had filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before DCDRC-V, Shalimar Bagh and was assigned the CC No.485/2018 .It was transferred to this Commission by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn/Transfer/20222/330 dated 16.04.2022 and accordingly this complaint was registered as RBT/CC No.236/2022.
2. Sh. Ratnesh Dixit, the Complainant has alleged deficiency in service against Naveen Electrotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), the Authorised dealer & seller and Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), the manufacturer.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 23.08.2015, the Complainant purchased one LED TV made TOS-40L5400 manufactured by OP-2 and sold by OP-1.
4. OP-1 issued Retail invoice number 2015-16/5973 for Rs.40,700/-. The warranty for the product was one year and the Complainant further paid Rs.658/- for extended warranty for two years.
5. It has been stated by the Complainant that after few months there was a problem in the screen of the LED TV for which the Complainant approached OP-1 and OP-2. The panel was changed and the LED was delivered after 15 days.
6. Again in the month of June, 2018, there was a problem of blinking of the screen in LED TV for which OP-1 and OP-2 were informed through emails. It has been alleged by the Complainant that despite extended warranty.
7. Since, no satisfactory response was given by OP-2 feeling aggrieved, the Complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer for directions to OPs to either replace the said LED TV with new or to pay an amount of Rs.40,700/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and damages of the losses.
8. The Complainant has annexed the invoice dated 23.08.2015, extended warranty card, emails dated 19.07.2018 with the complaint.
9. Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response; the OP-2 has filed its reply. However there is no appearance on behalf of the OP-1 despite service.
10. OP-2 has raised the preliminary objections such as: the complaint is false and baseless. Purchase of LED TV and extended warranty for two years has been admitted however, it has been stated that the said warranty pack could not be activated as the Complainant failed to register the warranty pack by sending the unique service pack ID via registered mobile number within a period of 15 days from the date of purchased therefore the three year’s warranty scheme could not be activated and the said LED TV was only having one year warranty.
11. It has been further submitted that the Complainant after using the LED TV for one year and seven months approximately, contacted the customer care of the OP for the first time on 08.03.2017. Even though the LED TV was not covered under the warranty scheme of three years; as a goodwill gesture, a complaint was registered by OP-2 vide complaint bearing number TIPLSR310008726. An engineer from the authorised service centre of OP-2 visited the premises of the Complainant in order to rectify the defects and replace the power board of the said LED on goodwill basis in order to make the same functional.
12. Again vide email dated 20.06.2018 a complaint was registered with OP-2 with respect to the technical issues and the same was duly replied vie email dated 21.06.2018 explaining the Complainant that the warranty extension pack of the Complainant was invalid and all the other services were chargeable. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.
13. OP-2 has annexed the Board Resolution dated 25.01.2016 authorising Mr. Nilesh Sharma to represent OP-2; screenshot of complaint number TIPLSR310008726 dated 08.03.2016 have been filed with the written statement;
14. Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-2 was filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has stated that according to OP-2, the product has been repaired two or three times which implies that the product is having manufacturing defect. Rest of the contents of the Written Statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.
15. Evidence by way of Affidavit have been filed by the Complainant and OP-2. The Complainant has reiterated the contents of the complaint. The Complainant has relied upon the invoice dated 23.08.2015 and has got it exhibited as Exh.-I. The Complainant has also relied upon the extended warranty card giving the warranty of two years on the said product and receipt sent to OP-2 and same are exhibited as Exh.-II and Exh.-III respectively.
16. OP-2 has got examined Sh. Nilesh Sharma on their behalf. He has relied upon the Board Resolution dated 25.01.2016 annexed with the reply and has got it exhibited as Ex.OPW-1. OP-2 has also relied upon the snapshots of the complaint bearing serial no.TIPLSR310008726 annexed with the reply and same is exhibited as Ex. OPW-2.
17. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and learned counsel for OP-2. As, OP-1 has not appeared despite service they are proceeded ex-parte.
18. The complainant has alleged that OP-2 failed to repair the LED TV which was under extended warranty. according to complainant as he had purchased extended warranty of 2 years , thus, LED TV was under warranty from 23.08.2015(the date of purchase),including the manufacturers one year warranty till 22.08.2018 (2 years extended warranty). On the other hand, OP-2 in their defence has submitted that the complainant did not register for the extended warranty package; thus they are not liable to repair the LED TV considering it to be under extended warranty.
19. Purchase of extended warranty is an undisputed fact. However, the activation of the same is in dispute. We have gone through the extended warranty card filed by the complainant. it bears the directions as to registration of the extended warranty with OP-2. The complainant on the other hand in Rejoinder has denied that he did not activate the extended warranty. He has stated that OP-1 had activated the 2 yrs extended warranty and there after the LED TV was handed over to him. He has further stated that he was informed by OP-1 that in case there was any problem in the product the complainant could approach the OP and register the complaint. This assertion of the complainant cannot be doubted. Thus, the reason for repairing the product free of cost after the expiry of one year warranty as a goodwill gesture cannot be believed.
20. We have also gone through Ex. OPW-2 (screenshots of the complainant’s profile consisting of 3 pages) for complaint dated 08.03.2017. This pertains to post expiry of 1 year manufacturer’s warranty. The warranty type in these 3 pages is being reproduced in a tabular form:

S.No.	Screenshot	Warranty Status
	SR List ( Service record )	ALL
	Profile	I.W. (in warranty)
	SR Info	Parts- OOW (Out of warranty) Labour-OOW (Out of warranty)
		Warranty Details : Goodwill

 

21. These 3 screenshots pertain to the same complaint no. TIPLSR310008726 dated 08.03.2017 but the warranty status is different in all the 3 screenshots. We are unable to appreciate as to how warranty status pertaining to one complaint number can be different in all the 3 screenshots. This casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the record maintained by OP-2.
22. Hence, we are of the opinion that OP-2 is liable for deficiency in service as they have failed to provide services/repairs despite the fact that the product was under the extended warranty. We do not find any deficiency in services against the OP-1,the seller as the extended warranty was to be honoured by the OP-2.
23.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct OP-2 (the manufacturer):-

1. To pay Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) being 50% of the cost of LED TV i.e. Rs. 40,000/- as per invoice dated 23.08.2015.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.
3. It is clarified that if the OP-2 fails to comply as directed in Clause (a) and Clause (b) above within one month from the date of receipt of this order, OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

24.     Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

      HARPREET KAUR CHARYA                                                ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                         

                   Member                                                                                      Member      

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

 

           DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

               President 

     DCDRC-1 (North)