Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/119

JAGJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARDAR ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

15 Jan 2020

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 119 of 17.10.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :   15.01.2020

 

 

Jagjit Singh aged about 43 years, son of late S. Shamsher Singh, resident of Village Hazipur Post Office Sukhsal Tehsil Nangal District Rupnagar   

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Sardar Enterprises 156 Ist Floor, Main Market Nangal, Township Tehsil Nangal District Rupnagar through its Proprietor 

2. Videocon Registered Office Videocon Industries, Limited, 14 KM Stone, Aurangabad, Paithan Road Village Chittegaon, Taluka, Paithan Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431105 

           ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Jagjit Singh, complainant in person  

Sh. Devinder Gorla, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.1

O.P. No.2 exparte 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Jagjit Singh aged about 43 years, son of late S. Shamsher Singh, resident of Village Hazipur Post Office Sukhsal Tehsil Nangal District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the LED in question with the new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per annum till the realization.   
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 23.10.2014, the complainant had purchased one LED Videocon Company 40 Inch from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.36,000/- vide bill No.44 dated 23.10.2014 and O.P. No.1 has given the guarantee/warrantee of this LED to the complainant of five years. He paid the cash amount to the O.P. No.1 at the time of purchase of this LED. In the month of May 2017, the LED in question faced problem and there was no picture and voice in the LED. After that he approached the OP. No.1 who noted down his complaint and then the OP No.1 assured that they would rectify the fault within 1-2 days and then after four days the employee of the O.P. No.1 came to his house and tried to find the fault, but he could not find out the fault and then he took the LED with him to the shop of the O.P. No.1 and assured that they would rectify the fault shortly and would return back the LED to him in OK position. After four months, the OP No.1 had taken the LED to the house of complainant and assured that they have rectified the fault and now this LED is working properly. They fitted the LED in his house but the said LED worked properly only for three days and after three days the LED again faced same problem. Again in the month of September 2017, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told him about the fault of the LED then the OP No.1 again assured that he would rectify the fault of the LED from the service engineer of the company. No service engineer of the company has been sent by the OP No.1 and then the complainant used to make the complaints on WWW.VGSERVICE.co in vide Phone No.39404040 and then on 13.5.2019 the service engineers came to the house of the complainant three times and they told that there is panel fault of the LED and for repair of that to purchase the concerned part, they demanded the amount and then he paid Rs.2150/- and Rs.1800/- and Rs.850/- total Rs.4800/- for replacement of that part but after receiving the said amount they never came to the house of complainant nor did they rectify the fault of the LED in question. Now the LED is lying in dead condition in his house. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, O.P. No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply taking preliminary objections: that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary party; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP No.1 into this unwanted litigation. On merits, it is stated that the Care Centre of OP No.2 company is liable to remove the defects in the LED in question. The OP No.1 is not liable to remove the defects occurred in the LED. The liability to remove the defects is only of the Care Centre of the company and the complainant has not impleaded him as party. There is no role of the OP No.1 to remove the grievances of the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for the dismissal thereof. 
4. On  Notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P No.2, thereafter, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.01.2020.
5.  On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has suffered a statement to the effect that the reply filed by OP No.1 may be read in evidence of OP NO.1 and does not want to tender any other documents and closed the evidence.     
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. Complainant stated that he has purchased one LED of Videocon company on 23.10.2014 against a sum of Rs.36,000/- from OP No.1 with five years warranty/guarantee. Due to the defect in functioning of the LED he made complaints to the OP No.1 many times and he paid to the service engineer of OP No.1 Rs.2150/-, Rs.1800 and Rs.850/- total Rs.4800/- for the replacement of the defective part. He further argued that employee of OP No.1 visited but there was no improvement in functioning of the LED and now the LED in question is lying in dead condition in his house then he has to file the present complaint. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.
8. None appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and was proceeded against exparte but on behalf of OP No.1 Sh. Davinder Gorla, Advocate appeared who made prayer that this complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the Care Centre was not impleaded as a party by the complainant in this complaint. Responsibility of the OP No.1 is to sell the product and OP No.2 is the manufacturer, but it is the settled provision that in case any of the product creates trouble in functioning then the purchaser is to approach the Care Centre. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. Complainant purchased the LED on 23.10.2014 against a sum of Rs.36,000/- in this respect and bill Ex.C2 is placed on the file, which is not denied by the contesting O.Ps. Complainant is resident of District Rupnagar, whereas OP No.1 has office in this district i.e. Nangal (Rupnagar). So sale/purchase of the LED is admitted and this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.         
10.  At the same time OP1 pointed out that sale of the product is dated 23.10.2014 and warranty period has expired, hence, complaint is not maintainable. In support of this arguments OP NO.2 did not place on file any documents but to meet out arguments complainant placed on file Ex.C3 which proves the warranty period is to expire on 23.10.2019 and the present complaint was filed on 17.10.2019.  So the product is covered by the warranty period which is to expire on 23.10.2019. So the arguments of the O.P. counsel is without merit.
11. Coming to the real controversy whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. OP No.2 is ex-parte and the claim of the complainant is unrebutted qua the said OP. So far the OP No.1 is concerned i.e. the sale agent who admitted and complainant has mentioned in para No.8 of the complaint that he had many times requested for the repair vide phone 39404040 mail WWW.VGSERVICE.CO.IN. He also paid Rs.4800/- on different dates. Further complainant placed on file the correspondence copy of which is Ex.C5 which is dated 3.11.2018, dated 11.5.2018 and 6.11.2018 and of other various dates which proves due to improper functioning of the LED he approached the O.Ps. OP No.1 received the payment of Rs.4800/- and the complaint/correspondence is on the file which proves the complainant is suffering from the functioning of the LED and the OPs failed in satisfying the complainant. In this way, the deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stands established and complaint deserves to be allowed.
12.  In the light of discussions made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. to repair the LED within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in default to pay Rs.12,000/- to the complainant as cost.  
13. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.15.01.2020                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER