Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
- Dr. Vijay Kumar complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased one HD Plasma TV from Syeno Enterprises vide invoice No. 2708 dated 11.10.2011 for Rs. 54480/-. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the product, whereas opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. The said TV set became non-functional as its display become blank on 25.7.2016. Complainant made complaint to opposite party No.2, who charged Rs. 1380/- from the complainant vide receipt No. 229 dated 25.7.2016. Thereafter engineer of opposite party No.2 visited the house of the complainant and tried to rectify the defect in the TV set, but could not succeed. Later on again the said engineer visited on 3.8.2016 and took away the component/part A-Board from the said TV with them and left the TV without rectifying any defect. Thereafter inspite of several personal visits as well as telephonic calls, opposite parties failed to rectify the defect in the TV set of the complainant . The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
- Opposite parties be directed to set right the TV of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative to refund Rs. 54480/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.10.2011 till realization ;
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alonogwith adequate litigation expenses.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has used the television for almost five years without there being any problem in the said television. The complainant has approached the service centre on 24.7.2016 when the television was inspected and it was found that A-Board of the said television was not working properly. Hence, the same was replaced on 25.7.2016. The opposite party had charged the service charges as the television is not within the warranty. It was submitted that the complainant had once again reported that the television is not functional when the same was once again inspected. However, despite the efforts, the television cannot be repaired as the requisite part is not available . The complainant was offered the refund of the amount of Rs. 1380/- as was charged from him. In addition, the complainant was offered a discount of 15% on any new television which the complainant may wish to purchase in return of the television in question. However, the complainant has not responded to the said offer and is adamant that the television should be repaired. It was submitted that the answering opposite party is not bound to repair the television as the same is not within warranty. The complainant is free to get the television repaired from any other source. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not opt to put in appearance despite due service, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte
4. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Mamandeep Singh Sodhi, authorized representative of opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as authorized representative on behalf of opposite party No.1 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased one HD Plasma TV from Syeno Enterprises vide Invoice No. 2708 dated 11.10.2011 for Rs. 54480/-, copy of invoice accounts for Ex.C-3 on record. It is the case of the complainant that the product in dispute was having warranty of one year with extended warranty of further two years . It is not the case of the complainant that the product in question worked correctly till the expiry of extended warranty period. But now on 24.7.2016 the said TV set become non functional as its display became blank. The complainant immediately approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of the company in this regard and opposite party No.2 charged Rs. 1380/- from the complainant for doing the job work against receipt No. 229 dated 25.7.2016, copy of invoice/receipt accounts for Ex.C-5 on record. However, the opposite party No.2 tried to remove the defect in the product in question but could not succeed, however , the said engineer who visited the premises of the complainant to remove the defect in the TV set, had taken away a component/A-Board from the TV set with him and left the said TV without removing any defect. Thereafter the complainant made futile visits as well as telephonic calls to the opposite party No.2 but opposite party No.2 did not accede to the genuine requests of the complainant.
8. On the other hand the case of the opposite party No.1 is that admittedly opposite party No.2 charged Rs. 1380/- from the complainant for removing the defects in the TV set , but the engineer of opposite party No.2 could not remove the defect so far and offered the complainant to take back the refund of Rs. 1380/-, which the complainant refused to accept. However, despite receipt of notice , opposite party No.2 did not opt to bother to defend its case and was proceeded against ex-parte . In this complaint the opposite party No.2 is firing by putting the gun on the solder of opposite party No.1 . On the other hand , it is the bounden duty of the service centre to repair the product to the satisfaction of the customer after charging its price . In the case in hand , opposite party No.2 on charging an hefty amount of Rs. 1380/- lingered on the matter since 24.7.2016 and could not satisfy the complainant in this regard, but, however, allegedly offered to refund the amount of Rs. 1380/- to the complainant on the excuse of non availability of parts/A-Board of the TV in question. To prove his case the complainant has produced the law of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in case titled as M/s. Sandeep Marbles Vs. Jagdev Singh 2013(4) CLT 184 has held that on the bill terms mentioned as non guarantee, no exchange or no return-Held-Even if there was no guarantee, then also the OP was not authorized to sell the defective material and for supplying any goods which are defective-Consumer complaint can be filed whether there is any guarantee/warranty or not. But, however, supra authority cited by Ld.counsel for the complainant is not fully applicable to the facts of the present case. But, however, as stated above after charging the amount , it is the duty of the opposite party No.2 to repair the product in question to the satisfaction of the complainant and if the said product was not repairable or the parts/A-board was not available in the market, the opposite party No.2 must have not received the amount from the complainant by keeping him in dark. In this way the opposite party No.2 was playing with the hefty amount of the complainant for a long period with ifs and whats.
9. Consequently , the complaint of the complainant is party allowed and opposite parties are directed to repair the TV in question to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any further amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order . Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment besides Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses . Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 6.2.2017
/R/
