ORDER
Per NiPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
Complainant purchased a Panasonic LED 32 inches for Rs. 28,000/- from OP2 vide invoice number SKB 02989 dt. 29/6/2014. The OP no.1 through its authorized dealer OP2 gave warranty for 2 years against the aforesaid LED for any kind of defect etc. It is alleged by the complainant that within few days of the purchase, the LED in question stopped functioning. The complainant made a complaint on 28/8/2014 vide complaint no. 14081515380 regarding the non-functioning of theLED, the engineer of the OP company visited the site and opened the LED TV in question, but he did nothing to rectify the defect and he went away after giving assurance to come again. It is further alleged by the complainant that when the said enginner did not come he again lodged a complaint on 3/9/2014 vide complaint no. 1409011646 where upon the OP sent another engineer who after making inspection of the LED stated that the panel of the said LED has been damaged due to mishandling, and further informed the complainant that the warranty condition were not applicable as the panel had been broken and the complainant had to pay a cost of Rs. 17,000/- for setting it right. The complainant pleaded with the OP that the said LED TV was under warranty and only couple of months had passed and the same was opened by their own engineer, ut all of no use. The complainant, therefore, approached this forum for the redressal of his grievances.
The complaint has been contested by the OP. OP has filed a written statement wheren it has stated that the present complaint is devoid of any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. It would be of benefit to reproduce para 5 of the written statement. It reads as under:
- That on having received the complaint regarding the non-functioning of the TV the engineer of the answering respondent visited to inspect the television at the place of the complainant. On having inspected the said television, it was found that the panel of the said television had been damaged due to mishandling. The complainant was informed of this fact and shown the damaged panel. The complainant was informed that the warranty conditions were not applicable as the panel had been broken due to mishandling by the complainant of the television. Vide letter dated 18.9.2014, the complainant was given the estimate for replacement of the broken display panel of the said television and the complainant was informed that he is required to pay the cost to replace the panel. The complainant did not revert to the said letter and has filed the present false and frivolous complaint. There is no merit in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service by the answering respondent. There is no unfair trade practice by the answering respondent. The present complaint is devoid of any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed.
The OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder to reiterate the facts as pleaded in the complaint.
The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. He has relied upon the document Ex. Cw1/1 , i.e. invoice no. SKB 02989 dt. 29/6/2014. He has also placed on record legal notice dated 5/9/2014 along with its postal receipt.
Sh. Harender Singh, AR of the OP filed its evidence by way of affidavit.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
On behalf of the OP, it has been contested that there was misleading of the LED on the part of the complainant. As a result of which the inner panel had damaged. It has relied upon the job sheet dated 3.9.2014 in this behalf. It has been contended that the OP had offered to repair the LED but the complainant has to bear the cost of the panel. The complainant on the other hand has pointed out that he had made the Ist complaint to the OP on 28/8/2014. The complaint was registered against no. 1408151380. The complainant has contended that the complaint was attended to by the engineer of the OP who have offered the set and had then closed it without rectifying the defect. The enginner had gone away promising to visit again in order to reverse the defect in the TV. He has contended that either there was an inherent defect in the LED or the panel was damaged by the engineer who had visited him to attend the said defect. The complainant had made mention of this number in his complaint as well as the in the affidavit filed as his evidence. Cospeiously enough, the OP has not specifically denied the receipt of this complaint dated 28.8.2014. It has also not denied that the said complaint was registered against complaint dated 28.8.2014. It has also not denied that the said complaint was originated against no. 1408151380. It has not stated as to who had attended the said coplaint and as to why it had been cleared. This job sheet of the said complaint has also not been filed on record by the OP. We are, therefore, of the view that the stand taken by the OP in this case is not truthfull. The OP has tried to mislead the forum as regards the Ist complaint recived by it. In the result, we have no hesitation but to agree with the contents of the complaint that the LED supplied or the TV was having an inherent defect or was damaged by the service engineer of the company. The complainant dt. Was attended upon. The OP , therefore, could not have insisted on the by the complaint for refrain of the pass. We, therefore, hold that the OP deficient in rendering services to the complainant. We, direct it as under:
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 86010/- ( Rs Eighty Six Thousands and Ten Only) along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution i.e. 26.3.2012 till payment.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the pain and agony suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant
may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
