Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/151

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Market - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manpreet Singh Gahunia Adv.

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.        :151of 31.10.2022

              Date of Decision                     :09.06.2023

Jaspreet Singh S/o Balwinder Singh R/o Bara Samana, Saman Kalan, Rupnagar, Punjab 140102.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Reliance Market, VR Punjab Mall, Kharar – Mohali Road, NH21, Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Store Manager.
2. JAIICO S2, No.1, Govindasamy Street, Palavanthangal Chennai, Tamil Nadhu, India, 600114 through its Managing Director.
3. TTE Technology India Pvt. Boomerang Building, Office No.B2-705, 7^th Floor, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – Mumbai City, MH-400072, India through its Director.

  …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

MS.RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Manpreet Singh Gahunia, Advocate

For OP No.1                            :         Sh.Sarvpreet Singh Baweja, Advocate

For Op No.2&3             :         Ex parte

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, counsel for the complainant has averred thatcomplainant approached the OP-1 to purchase a LED TV, Refrigerator and Washing Machine.  Complainant on assurances and guarantee given by OP-1 to complainant that if any fault or defect is found in the newly purchased TCL 32 HD LED then OPs will be responsible for it either to replace the purchased TCL 32 HD LED TV with new one or to refund back the amount spent upon the purchasing of new LED.  OP-1 has told the complainant that OP-2 is given warranty of 36 months on purchase of New LED Tv.  On said assurance, complainant has shown his willingness to purchase TCL 32 HD LED TV.  On 26.10.2019, complainant purchased TCL 32 HD Smart LED TV, for Rs.11730/- vide bill No.6.  On 21.06.2022 said LED video was not functioning/running due to some defect and for same complainant registered complaint to OP-2.  On 25.06.2022 technician had come to complainant home to check the defect and after found out the defect, technician told the complainant that he will come to complainant home after a week.  Then on 03.07.2022, technician visited the complainant and told that functioning board/plate of  LED have some problem and the same has to replace.  After change of said board/plate but LED still have same problem, then technician told the complainant that LED screen has some problem.  Technician had taken time for a week for change LED screen part and uninstall the board plate and took it back with himself.  Complainant had waited till 10.07.2023, then complainant called up the concerned technician, who told the complainant that he will come in few days with the LED screen part come into their service store.  On 13.07.2022, complainant was shocked when he received a message on his mobile number from TCL that “dear TCL Guest your job number is IN062022042942-01 has been completed if you have any complaints related to our service, please call on 18004190622”.  Whereas, TCL technician promised the complainant that they would replace the said part in warranty.  On 16.07.2022 and 28.07.2022, the complainant called up OP-2 but they have not given response.  Thereafter on 24.07.2022, complainant went to OP-1 regarding said issue, OP-1 given assurance to complainant that OP-1 will remove the defect from Op No.2&3.  No technician have come to remove the defect.  On 08.10.2022, complainant again contacted OP-2 and 3 via email but Ops failed to resolve complaint.  Lastly prayer has been made that Ops be directed to removed said defect from LED TV and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation.
2. Upon notice, OP-1has appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by submitted that complainant is not maintainable; complaint is false; OP-1 is a seller of various electronic items of many manufacturers sold at its stores;  OP-1 is only a retailer and has no role to play in replacement or rectification of defects in TCL LED from OP-1;  complainant has purchase the product on 26.10.2019 and used till 25.06.2022 so there was not fault in product till said date.  Rectification of product is solely the responsibility of service centre and IF, the complainant has faced any issue that was between service centre and complainant only.  On merits, purchase of produce is admittedbut other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. The Op No.2&3 have failed to appeared and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 10.03.2023.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
5. We have heard learned the parties with their valuable assistance and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. Counsel for complainant has argued that complainant purchased the product in dispute vide bill No.6 dated 26.10.2019 for Rs.11730.20 from OP-1. The Opposite parties have given the warranty information which was supplied and attached with the invoice. Copy of invoice as well as warranty is enclosed, information referring warranty is also enclosed.. All these documents may kindly be read as part and parcel of this complaint.Complainant had been using theLED TV in accordance with instructions issued and contained in printed material and on 21.06.2022, the functioning of this LED TV became irregular, obstructed and screengot defected.
7. Copy of the bill of Ex.C-2 has been produced on the record, which fully establishes claim of complainant qua such purchase, being made by him. In Ex.C-1 itself warranty period of 36 months from date of purchase is mentioned with further observation that said warranty will be available from the service center of the company. Complainant approached Op No.2, but Op-2 has failed to rectify the defect of LED TV.  Thus, virtually statement of complainant suffered through affidavit through Ex.CW1/A is fully believable that he due to defect of LED TV it not working. Despite that the trouble in the LED TV is persisting. This complaint has been filed for rectification of the LED TV within warranty period.
8. In case titled as Hind Motor (I) Ltd &Anr. Tata Motors Vs Lakhbir Singh & another 1(2014) CPJ 120 (NC), it has been laid that in case inherent defect in vehicle requiring major repairs after short span of eight months, found, then the vehicle should be replaced, due to deficiency in services.Same is the position in this case. So by applying the analogy of law laid down in the above said case, this complaint deserves to be allowed.
9. Consequently, this complaint is allowed with directions to OP No.3 to deliver a new LED TV to complainant without charging any cost from him. In the alternative, OP-3 through Op No.2 and OP-1 is directed to return price of amount of LED TV to complainant.
10. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from copy of receipt of this order.
11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
12. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:09.06.2023

                                  

                                                (Kuljit Singh)

                                                      President

 

 

 

                   (Ranvir Kaur)              

                         Member