Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against the opposite parties by alleging that the complainant is old aged widow lady and her husband Makhan Singh son of Banta Singh was doing service in Army and he was expired in the year 2004. The complainant has purchased one Onida LED TV 55” on 29.9.2017 having model name 55 UHD Super Thunder LED TV and Bar code serial No. 8902987001716 from the opposite party No. 2 manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 by paying a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. 259076 dated 29.9.2017 & while selling the LED TV the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the unit sold by him is the best quality in the market and it is covered by three year warranty on penal and one year over all warranty on Full LED and it was also assured by the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No. 1 will immediate replace the unit with a new one in case of any sort of defect in it on the complaint by the customer. At the time of purchasing the above said LED TV the complainant has submitted his residential address to opposite party No.2 as a delivery address but erroneously opposite party No.2 mentioned the delivering addressee name i.e. Sub Makhan Singh instead of complainant Manjit Kaur as such on bill the residential address of the complainant has been mentioned by the opposite party No.2. From the very day of installation the LED TV purchased by the complainant which was actually got installed at his residence house started giving problems in performance as the colours and picture of the LED TV was not upto the mark and was not as per the satisfaction of the complainant and there are white spot on the screen LED TV and as such the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.2 who suggested him that requisite complaint is required to be lodged by the complainant with opposite party No. 1 regarding it which was done so by the complainant on dated 4.9.2020 vide complaint no.2009 L 606380019 registered by Onida customer care, Mumbai and in this complaint following problems were raised by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1.
a) permanent patches around the LED panel screen
b) current found on metal screws on rear side of LED penal
c) on screen date/time is not saved when TV is restart.
As such on the complaint of the complainant the opposite party No.3 sent his technician i.e. opposite party No.4 to the house of the complainant and told the complainant that the after the repair work the LED will work properly and as such the panel of the LED was replaced with new but it is refurbished one which is also defective one as such due to this refurbished panel some new problem occurred with the mother board of the LED as such the existing mother board stopped working due the refurbished panel replacement. Even after the repair work of LED it did not work properly and all the problems remain as it is as such the complainant again lodged new complaint on dated 4.12.2020 vide complaint No. 2012 L 606380091 and as such on the complaint the opposite party No.3 sent his technician namely Harjinder Singh opposite party no.4 who visited the house of the complainant and told the complainant that the mother board of the unit in question is defective and as such the mother board of the unit is required to be replaced with a new one and as such he told that he will inform about it to the opposite party No.1 After that mother board of the said LED TV was changed along with other required repair work is done by the opposite party No.4 and for that repair work the complainant has also made the payment of Rs. 1,100/- to opposite party No.3 as service charges for replacing the mother board and for that payment bill for replacing the mother board is also issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. Even after the repair work and replacing the mother board of the said LED TV it did not work properly and all the problems remain as it is as such the complainant again lodged new complaint with the opposite party no.2 on April 2022 vide complaint no. 2204 Q 356380034 respectively and finally on 05-07-2022 as complaint No. 2207 Q 356380032 as such till today mother board of the LED TV was replaced by one time and panel of the LED TV was also replaced by one times and 4 to 5 times repair work of the LED TV was done by the opposite party No.4 on the instructions of opposite party No.1 but till today the defects of the said LED TV has not been removed by the opposite parties and the now the said LED TV has been completely shut down and the screen of the said LED became totally blank and nothing is shown on the screen of the LED and it is not working. That nothing was done by the opposite parties to solve the defective LED TV unit with a new one nor the complainant was satisfied and given proper reply to the complaints. The LED TV Unit purchased by the complainant is suffering from manufacturing defect but as the defect was from the very first day of installation but the Opposite party No 1 inspite of knowing it is avoiding the assurance of warranty of replacement of the defective unit with a new one. The complainant lodged the numbers of complaints with the opposite party No. 1 i.e. on 04-09-2020, on 4-12-2020, on April 2022 and finally on 05-07-2022 vide complaints no. 2207 Q 356380032 and prayed the following grounds:-
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the LED TV Unit of the complainant immediately with new LED or return the cost amount of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant immediately.
- That the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing great mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant as such the complainant is legally entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties on account of fault, imperfection, unfair trade practice, inadequacy in quality, manner of performance of service, mental & physical pain, agony, inconvenience harassment and deficiency in services to the complainant and opposite parties be also be directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant
Alongwith the complainant, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, self attested copy of invoice issued by M/s Ajay TV Centre (Regd) of Rs. 85,000/- Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of extended warranty card Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Invoice No. 259076 issued by Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of complaint No. 2012 L 606380091 dated 4.12.2020 Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of complaint No. 2207 Q 356380032 dated 5.7.2022 Ex. C-6, self attested copy of message of complaint done by the complainant 2204 Q 356380034 on April 2022 Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of message of complaint done by the complainant 2207 Q 3563800032 of dated 5.7.2022 Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of slip of Onida Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of complainant Ex. C-10, message complaint No. 200 L 606380019 dated 4th September 2020 Ex. C-11, affidavit of Perminder Singh Kang Ex. C-12.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties but no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 and consequently, the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 was proceeded against exparte.
3 The complainant has withdrawn the present complaint against opposite party No. 3 vide order dated 6.2.2024.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the file.
5 The complainant has produced on record his affidavit Ex. C-1 and declared that the complainant is old aged widow lady and her husband Makhan Singh son of Banta Singh was doing service in Army and he was expired in the year 2004. The complainant has purchased one Onida LED TV 55” on 29.9.2017 having model name 55 UHD Super Thunder LED TV and Bar code serial No. 8902987001716 from the opposite party No. 2 manufactured by the opposite party No. 1 by paying a sum of Rs. 85,000/- to the opposite party No. 2 vide invoice No. 259076 dated 29.9.2017 Ex. C-2 & while selling the LED TV the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the unit sold by him is the best quality in the market and it is covered by three year warranty on penal and one year over all warranty on Full LED and it was also assured by the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No. 1 will immediate replace the unit with a new one in case of any sort of defect in it on the complaint by the customer. At the time of purchasing the above said LED TV the complainant has submitted his residential address to opposite party No.2 as a delivery address but erroneously opposite party No.2 mentioned the delivering addressee name i.e. Sub Makhan Singh instead of complainant Manjit Kaur as such on bill the residential address of the complainant has been mentioned by the opposite party No.2. He further declared that from the very day of installation the LED TV purchased by the complainant which was actually got installed at his residence house started giving problems in performance as the colours and picture of the LED TV was not upto the mark and was not as per the satisfaction of the complainant and there are white spot on the screen LED TV and as such the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.2 who suggested him that requisite complaint is required to be lodged by the complainant with opposite party No. 1 regarding it which was done so by the complainant on dated 4.9.2020 vide complaint No.2009 L 606380019 registered by Onida customer care, Mumbai and in this complaint following problems were raised by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1.
a) permanent patches around the LED panel screen
b) current found on metal screws on rear side of LED penal
c) on screen date/time is not saved when TV is restart.
He also declared that on the complaint of the complainant the opposite party No.3 sent his technician i.e. opposite party No.4 to the house of the complainant and told the complainant that the after the repair work the LED will work properly and as such the panel of the LED was replaced with new but it is refurbished one which is also defective one as such due to this refurbished panel some new problem occurred with the mother board of the LED as such the existing mother board stopped working due the refurbished panel replacement. He also declared that even after the repair work of LED it did not work properly and all the problems remain as it is as such the complainant again lodged new complaint on dated 4.12.2020 vide complaint No. 2012 L 606380091 and as such on the complaint the opposite party No.3 sent his technician namely Harjinder Singh opposite party no.4 who visited the house of the complainant and told the complainant that the mother board of the unit in question is defective. The mother board of the unit is required to be replaced with a new one and as such he told that he will inform about it to the opposite party No.1. After that mother board of the said LED TV was changed along with other required repair work is done by the opposite party No.4 and for that repair work the complainant has also made the payment of Rs. 1,100/- to opposite party No.3 as service charges for replacing the mother board and for that payment bill for replacing the mother board is also issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant. He further declared that even after the repair work and replacing the mother board of the said LED TV it did not work properly and all the problems remain as it is as such the complainant again lodged new complaint with the opposite party No.2 on April 2022 vide complaint No. 2204 Q 356380034 respectively and finally on 05-07-2022 as complaint No. 2207 Q 356380032 as such till today mother board of the LED TV was replaced by one time and panel of the LED TV was also replaced by one times and 4 to 5 times repair work of the LED TV was done by the opposite party No.4 on the instructions of opposite party No.1 but till today the defects of the said LED TV has not been removed by the opposite parties. He further declared that now the said LED TV has been completely shut down and the screen of the said LED became totally blank and nothing is shown on the screen of the LED and it is not working. Nothing was done by the opposite parties to solve the defective LED TV unit with a new one nor the complainant was satisfied and given proper reply to the complaints. He further declared that the LED TV Unit purchased by the complainant is suffering from manufacturing defect but as the defect was from the very first day of installation but the Opposite party No 1 inspite of knowing it is avoiding the assurance of warranty of replacement of the defective unit with a new one. The complainant lodged the numbers of complaints with the opposite party No. 1 i.e. on 04-09-2020, on 4-12-2020, on April 2022 and finally on 05-07-2022 vide complaints No. 2207 Q 356380032. The complainant has placed on record complaints Ex. C-7, C-8 and C-11.
6 The evidence led by the complainant on the file goes unchallenged and unrebutted as Opposite Parties are proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Parties and opposite parties did not appear in this Commission in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Parties have nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against them by the complainant.
7 In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 are directed to replace the LED TV Unit of the complainant immediately with new LED of same make and same model or to return the cost of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant immediately. The complainant has been unnecessarily harassed by the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 4 for a long time, therefore, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 7,500/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of filing instant complaint till its realisation. The present complaint against the opposite party No. 3 is dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission
19.06.2024
