ORDER

21.08.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant had purchased three LCD (Philips LCD 24 PFL4505 Two PCS and Philips LCD 32 PFL4305 One PCS) on 07.04.2011 vide invoice no.34 from the addressee no.2 against the total consideration of Rs.52,000/- with warranty of 4 years.
2. It is stated that respondent no.2 is the authorized dealer of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.3 and 4 are the authorized service center of the respondent no.1. It is further stated that respondent no.1 is the company which is the manufacturer of electronic items.
3. It is stated that the complainant obtained AMC in the name of his son from the respondent no.3 for one year on 23.04.2013 and paid Rs.8983/- to the respondent no.3 vide bill no.073. It is further stated that thereafter the said AMC renewed on 15.05.2014 to 14.05.2015 for the LCDs of “24” AMC No. P-85 and the AMC of LCD “32” was also taken over by the respondent no.4 on 06.04.2014. It is stated that thereafter the LCD “32” stopped working and my client inform the respondent no.4 telephonically and the officials of respondent no.4 visited the house of the complainant and taken the TUNER PCB CIB OF LCD on 15.05.2014 but not returned till date and during this period the complainant made hundreds of call to the different officials of the service centre and company but all in vain.
4. It is stated that the other two LCDs “24” also stopped working about which the complainant informed the officials of service centre and on the information of my clients the officials of respondent no.4 visited two times i.e 02.05.2014 and 15.05.2014 and repaired the LCDs but after sometime the same both LCD of “24” did not work at all. It is further stated that complainant has made several calls to the officials of respondent no.1, 2 and 4 but nobody turned up till today. It is further stated that the LCD “32” was  also stopped working nearby Aug. 2012 and the same was taken over by the Authorized Service Center i.e Manthan Electronic Shakti Nagar Delhi which also returned back the same LCD after more than three months for which the complainant had made more than 200 calls to different officials of respondent no.1.
5. It is stated that complainant has visited and called them personally to the all respondents  but all in vain. It is further stated that all LCDs are lying with the complainant in non working conditions and of no use but the complainant has to protect them from breakage and other things which in turn cause waste of time, space and money. It is stated that due to deficiency in services by the respondents, the complainant and his family members had been deprived from entertainment, news etc. for which the complainant had paid money to the respondents. It is stated that in the compelling circumstances, the complainant purchased a new LCD of Rs.28,000/- on 04.10.2014 for himself and his family members.
6. It is stated that for this entire period of more than one year the complainant has telephoned on several occasions to the respondents to do the needful and spent more than Rs.5000/- in this regard, besides visiting the office of the respondents, but all the respondents have the audacity and depravity of not responding even once in this entire period in any manner, thus causing acute mental agony, harassment and humiliation. It is further stated that they lost the fact being engaged in public and service oriented industry and behaved in a most causal and reckless manner.
7. It is stated that the constrained and compelled with the rigid, negligent and indifferent attitude of the respondents, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.11.2014 to all the respondents but of no avail. It is further stated that respondent no.2, 3 and 4 is also liable to pay the expenses/cost of LCDs/cost of AMC and also the amount compensation as they are deemed to be the representative of the company (respondent no.1) for keeping their products in their shop and also selling the same with tall assurances regarding after sales service. In fact the respondent no.2 as they represent them in all matters from promoting their sales till after sales service even during or after the period of warranty. Hence the all respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant.
8. Complainant is seeking direction against OPs to pay Rs.1,47,613/- (Rs.52,000/- towards cost of LCDs + Rs.28,000/- cost of new LCD + Rs.17,613/- cost of AMC + Rs.50,000/- as compensation) to complainant for suffering lot of mental pain, agony, harassment and humiliation by the complainant, to pay Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses and any other order which deems fit and proper.
9. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint.
10. As per order dated 03.07.2017 OP1 was proceeded ex parte.
11. As per order dated 11.09.2017 OP 2, 3, 4 and 5 were deleted from the array of parties as per affidavit filed by complainant.
12. As per record the complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 19.07.2018.
13. The complainant filed an application for restoration of the complaint vide order dated 06.08.2018. The notice was issued to OP1 to 5. The record does not show when the complaint was restored. However proceedings again started and opportunity given to complainant for filing of evidence. OP5 was also proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.03.2019.
14. As per order dated 22.10.2019 OP1 filed an application for setting aside ex parte order. Thereafter parties sought time for settlement but no settlement arrived.
15. The record shows that the application for setting aside ex parte order filed by OP1 remained pending. The law is settled that this Commission has no power to set aside the ex-parte orders, therefore, the application stands dismissed.
16. The complainant alleged that he had purchased the LCD TV of Philips and proved invoice dated 07.04.2011 and paid Rs.52,000/- with four years warranty. The complainant also alleged that he had taken AMC from PE WE care service for one year on 23.04.2013 and paid Rs. 8983/- and also got renewed on 15.05.2014 to 14.05.2015  for 24 inch and for 32 inch LCD from Glacier Services on 06.04.2014. The complainant further alleged that LCD 32 inch stopped working and complaint made to Glacier Services. The two LCDs 24 inchs stopped working and complaint was made. The officials of service centre visited two times i.e on 02.05.2014 and 15.05.2014 and repaired but after some time the TV stopped working and despite several complaints, no officer visited. The complainant alleged that the circumstances and deficiency in service on the part of OP1 to 4 compelled him to purchase a new LCD for Rs. 28,000/-. The complainant filed on record the warranty card of OP1 Philips of four years. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the warranty. The three LCD TVs purchased by complainant stopped working within four years of warranty period and despite several complaints the service centres failed to provide services and OP1 manufacturer also failed to  fulfill the duties as per four years warranty card and its terms and conditions. The complainant established on record deficiency of service on the part of OP1.
17. On the basis of above observation and discussion we hold OP1 guilty of deficiency of service and direct to pay Rs. 52,000/- along with 6% interest and further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- compensation and legal expenses.  In case OP1 failed to pay the above said amount within one months from the date of receipt of the order then directed to pay 9% interest on the above said amount till realization. File be consigned to record room.
18. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  21.08.2024.

        SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER