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

Consumer Complaint No.310 of 2018

                                                   Date of institution:  15.03.2018

                                                   Date of decision   :  30.04.2019

Mrs. Swaran Kaur wife of S. Simarjit Singh, resident of House No.1257-E, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Onida Enterprises, Mirc. Electronics Ltd., Onida House, G1, MIDC, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093.

2.     Ashoka Enterprises, Show Room No.4 and 5, Naya Gaon, District Mohali, Punjab.

……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:     Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for complainant

                Shri Shivam Grover, counsel for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 ex-parte.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                Complainant purchased Onida Smart LED from OP No.2 on 23.10.2016. At the time of purchase, complainant was disclosed about the special offer as per which extended warranty for three years was provided. Payment was made by complainant by paying amount in excess of MRP. This LED keept on working fine for about 13 months, but in first week of November it stopped working. Play of music was displayed, but picture was not displayed. On lodging of complaint with dealer, complainant was disclosed as if some representative of Onida Company will look into the matter. Contact number of Mr. Dev, Service Manager also was provided by claiming that he will look into the matter. That Mr. Dev sent an engineer to house of complainant, who claimed that penal of the Onida LED being defective needs replacement, for which cost of around Rs.45,000/- will have to be incurred. Complainant disclosed about the existing warranty by showing the warranty card, on which the said engineer disclosed that he will lodge a complaint with the company by praying for replacement of the panel free of cost. That engineer claimed that Rs.1,000/- will have to be paid as service and handling charges by complainant, which were paid. Despite wait for 20 days, no solution was provided and thereafter another complaint was lodged. After 25 days of complaint, an engineer of OP Company took the Ondia Smart LED with him by claiming that he will return the same after replacement of panel. After 4/5 days said engineer came back for claiming that repair of the LED has been done and that there is no need of change of panel because problem was minor. This LED worked fine for 15 days, but again it broke down and call was given to Mr. Dev, but none sent despite wait of 5/6 days. When complainant enquired through telephonic call as to why the panel has not been changed despite LED being within warranty, then it was disclosed as if the panel is not available, but request has been sent to Head Office for providing panel. No reasonable answer was provided and that is why this complaint by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs and seeking refund of price of LED with compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1.00 lakh.

2.             In reply submitted by OP No.1, it is claimed that deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 is not there and that in view of involvement of intricate questions of law and facts requiring elaborate evidence, the matter should be got decided from civil court of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, it is claimed that complainant has suppressed material facts. No cause of action alleged to have accrued in favour of complainant and complaint in present form not maintainable. Moreover, complainant alleged to be estopped by her act and conduct from filing this complaint. Admittedly complainant purchased Onida Smart LED TV, but assertions regarding special offer made by the dealer regarding extended warranty on payment of some amount are denied for want of knowledge. The bill enclosed with the complaint does not show any extra amount paid for getting extended warranty. The warranty annexed with the complaint bears the date of purchase as 28.10.2016, but in fact the actual date of sale as per invoice is 23.10.2016. The extended warranty card does not bear the date of purchase and as such the same is alleged to be not a valid warranty. Besides as per terms and conditions, complainant was under obligation to log in/register her name with company call centre within 7 days from receiving the standard warranty card or extended warranty card, but no such log in/registration got done by complainant. Being so, complainant alleged to be not entitled to extended warranty coverage facility.  Admittedly authorised representative of OP No.1 received call from complainant on 04.11.2017 regarding LED in question and as such OP No.1 being Service Head alongwith his Technician Mr. Babu Lal visited house of complainant for finding as if there was malfunctioning error due to use of internet or USB drive.  So OP No.1 carried out software updation work for making the LED to function properly. On being satisfied with the works, complainant paid Rs.1,000/- towards service and handling charges without any protest against proper receipt. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.             OP No.2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.             Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and then closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Dev Singh alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and thereafter closed evidence.

5.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and record gone through.

6.             Copy of invoice Ex.C-1 establishes that one Onida Smart LED TV was purchased by complainant from OP No.2 on payment of Rs.54,300/. An old CTV + RO was also given by complainant to OP No.2 for purchase of Onida LED TV alongwith Geyser and Aqua Fresh (RO). On invoice Ex.C-1 itself it is mentioned that goods once sold are under manufacturer terms and conditions for which dealer is not liable. In view of this endorsement of condition No.4 on Ex.C-1, there remains no escape from the conclusion that OP No.2 being dealer, not liable to provide services for warranty/guarantee because those to be provided by the manufacturer.

7.             Complainant has produced on record extended warranty card Ex.C-2, in which date of purchase is mentioned as 28.10.2016. However, invoice Ex.C-1 is dated 23.10.2016 and as such submission advanced by counsel for OP No.1 has force that this extended warranty card even is not valid because the same does not disclose the exact date of purchase. Even if the product serial number mentioned in extended warranty Ex.C-2 may be the same as is purchased through invoice, despite that benefit of extended warranty not available to complainant because on the top of Ex.C-2 itself it has been mentioned that after availing extended warranty facility, one has to register his purchase at Phone No.3988 9000. That registration has not been got done by complainant by log in or otherwise and as such one of the necessary conditions for availing benefits of extended warranty not fulfilled by complainant herself. Being so, complainant not entitled for benefit of extended warranty.

8.             OP No.1 has admitted in the written reply that one engineer visited house of complainant on 04.11.2017 for updating the software and then amount of Rs.1,000/- was charged as handling and service charges. Receipt Ex.C-3 shows charging of amount of Rs.1,000/- from complainant on 04.11.2017 for service charges of Onida LED. As those service charges were paid by complainant without protest for updation of software and as such certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP No.1 has force that in view of non discharge of obligation of getting the purchase registered, complainant not entitled to benefit of extended warranty services. It is so because one of the conditions of terms of warranty Ex.OP-2 provides that customer is required to log in and register his/her name with Company’s call centre within 7 days from receipt of standard warranty card/extended warranty card. Further as per these terms and conditions failure to do so by customer will render the standard warranty or the extended warranty invalid and void, on which company will stand discharged from its obligations and responsibilities. As it is not the case of complainant that such log in or registration was got done with company’s call centre within 7 days of purchase and as such warranty became invalid and void resulting in discharge of OP No.1 company from its obligations and responsibilities.  So complainant not entitled to benefit of extended warranty in such circumstances and as such in view of the fact that LED worked for 13 months well, even as per case of complainant, it has to be held that there is no manufacturing defect in the LED. In view of that the complaint seeking services under the extended warranty, being not maintainable, merits dismissal.

9.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

April 30, 2019

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member