DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 89/2019

Date of Institution: 08.03.2023

Judgment Reserved on: 24.08.2023

Judgment Passed on: 29.08.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant with respect to deficiency in service by OP1 for selling defective LED TV as manufactured by OP2.
2. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one LED TV as manufactured by OP2 from authorized dealer of OP2 for a sum of 19700/- vide Invoice No. 014860 dated 08.03.2017 having one year warrantee by the OP2. Within two months of the purchase of the said LED TV, it had a problem of display which was not working properly and it was showing green light and was not showing the clear picture to which he made a complaint to the OP1 but OP1 refused to listen anything and suggested that complainant should approach OP2 and accordingly complainant lodged a complaint to the customer care number of OP2. Thereafter an engineer of OP2 visited the house and disclosed that the TV is having a manufacturing defect in the LED and it cannot be resolved permanently and LED would be replaced and he even made the necessary report and even took the photograph of LED and stated that TV is defective and would be replaced within 30 days.
3. Thereafter despite completion of the 2 months when the TV was not replaced, he contacted OP2 again and he was assured that the complaint is pending and would be resolved but no one turned up and in the month of March, 2018 the LED TV stopped functioning and complainant made complaint again to OP2, where after one engineer visited the complainant house and stated that some software issue was there and he up-dated the same. After repairing the same the LED started working but problem in the display could not be resolved and he also assured the complainant that he would send the report to the OP2 in the month of March 2018 itself.
4. When the warrantee period was likely to expire the complainant received a call from OP1 and told him to get the warrantee period of his LED TV extended for further one year for which he has to pay Rs.1400/- which the complainant agreed and paid Rs.1400/- to OP1. Warrantee period was extended up to March, 2019. In the month of February, 2019 the problems like earlier started again and this time besides the display problem another problem of the voice also started. Therefore, complainant lodged the complaint again on 22.02.2019. The engineer of OP2 reached the complainant’s house on 23.02.2019 and after checking the same showed his inability to resolve the issue and told that another engineer would visit but nobody visited up to 01.03.2019 and one engineer of OP visited on 01.03.2019 only, and told him that the issue would only to resolved in the LED TV if the complainant would take extended warrantee for further one year on payment of charges. The complainant tried to convince the said engineer that his previous warrantee is still valid but the engineer of the OP2 did not listen anything and went back  without resolving the issues which amounts to deficiency in service as well as harassment to the complainant and thereafter the complainant has filed the present complaint within the limitation period praying that OPs be directed to reimburse Rs. 19700/- to the complainant, pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.11000/-.
5. The OPs were served and both the OPs filed their separate WS. The OP1 in its WS has stated that the complainant had purchased the LED TV from him which was manufactured by OP2 and therefore all the warrantees are borne by the OP2 the manufacturer and this fact was conveyed to complainant at the time of selling the product. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant out of pure greed and nefarious intentions of taking compensation from the OP1, without there being any deficiency on the part of OP1, by adopting pressurized tactics. Neither there is any cause of action against OP1 nor OP1 has committed any deficiency in service, as the product was sold in perfect and good condition to the complainant who had been utilizing the same for sufficient long period and therefore the complaint of the complainant against him be dismissed.
6. On merits purchase of the T.V. by the complaint from OP1 is not denied and it is specifically stated that complainant and OP2 both were in touch of each other and OP2 had been sending its engineer for which OP1 has no information, therefore there is no cause of action against OP1. As far as extending of warrantee for another one year, it is submitted that it was done by OP1 vide invoice No. DGPREET 0575 on 08.03.2019 and a sum of Rs.1400/- were taken and said warrantee has expired on 07.03.2019. On 22.02.2019 complaint was received and as per job sheet the authorized technician of OP2 has visited the complainant’s house on 22.02.2019 and observed the said LED for 30 minutes from 18.30 hours to 19.00 hours and LED was found OK and complainant has signed the job sheet on pre-printed statement which is “I am fully satisfied with the repaires on my product and same is working satisfactorily” and it is submitted that since the said LED was in extended warrantee period and therefore no visit charges were taken. Rather visit charges were paid by OP1 and it is prayed that the complaint of complainant be dismissed.
7. OP2 has filed its WS taking preliminary objection that complaint is bad on facts as well as on law, the complaint is based on conjecture and surmises, there is no cogent reason for filing the complaint and even otherwise complainant is stopped from filing this complaint as he by his own Acts and conduct, has not approached the Commission with clean hands. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed and be dismissed.
8. It is further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the product and whenever there was any complaint made by the complainant, the technician visited the OP and redressed the complaint and it is stated that after purchasing the TV by complainant the same was installed on 08.03.17 by the service engineer and gave the thorough demo of the product. The complainant contacted for the first time on 09.07.2017 with respect to “Picture not clear issues” which was attended by the engineer and it was found that LED was functioning perfectly nor there was any issue with respect to picture quality and then the second complaint was made on 07.03.2018 i.e. the last day of warrantee period. Complainant again contacted the OP regarding “picture not clear issue” and OP company sent service engineer and diagnosed that LED was functioning perfectly right and there was no issue for the picture quality and it is further submitted that the warrantee of the OP2 was only  for one year which expired on 07.03.2018 and the complainant on 08.03.2018 had purchased the extended warrantee from OP1 only and thereafter the OP2 had no role to play for this extended warrantee. Therefore, neither any manufacturing defect has been proved within the warrantee period nor any complaint remained unattended during the warrantee period and therefore the complaint of the complainant be dismissed. It is further stated that the complainant approached with another complaint only on 22.02.2019 for the same problem “Picture is not clear” and in response thereto, the service engineer was sent once again the service engineer found that LED was functioning perfectly and there was no issue in picture quality and in the background of all these facts, it is submitted that complainant has failed to demonstrate in the complaint any deficiency on the part of OP2 and since there is no deficiency on the part of OP2, nor it has extended any warrantee after the initial one year warrantee period, the complaint of the complainant against OP2 is not maintainable. On merits it is stated that as and when the complaint made any complaint the same was attended to, and even otherwise the facts as stated in preliminary objection be read in defense and complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
9. Complainant had not filed rejoinder and has filed his own evidence by way of affidavit. OP1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Bhupesh Kumar, its AR, and OP2 has filed evidence of by way of affidavit of Shri Ajayanji, its AR.
10. Complainant has exhibited following documents:
    1. Aadhar Card, EX.PW1/A.
    2. Copy of the bill dated 08.03.2017, EX.PW1/B.
    3. Copy of the Warranty extended bill dated 08.03.2018, EX.PW1/C.
    4. Copy of the Job Sheet dated 22.02.2019, EX.PW1/D.
11. OP1 has exhibited only one document i.e. the Job Card of 22.02.2019 and OP2 has exhibited Job Sheet dated 08.03.2017, Job Sheet dated 09.07.2017 and  Job Sheet dated 07.03.2018 which are exhibited as RW1 to RW2.
12. Complainant has also filed written arguments but no written arguments are filed by OPs.
13. The Commission has heard the argument and perused the record.
14. The facts are not much disputed that the complainant purchased on TV from OP1 on 07.03.2017. The first complaint was made by complainant on July, 2017, second complaint was made by complainant in March, 2018. The extended warrantee was purchased by complainant from OP1 on 08.03.2018 and thereafter the complaint, was made by complainant only on 22.02.2019. All are not disputed facts.
15. The dates as mentioned are quite relevant particularly for the purpose when complainant has purchased LED TV and has a complaint of picture quality. Admittedly. The first two complaints were made during the existence of warrantee period given by the manufacturer/OP2 and as per the complainant the issue was not resolved whereas, as per OPs there was no defect in the picture quality. Admittedly, the complainant has not sought any opinion of expert to prove the manufacturing defect in the TV. No doubt certain complaints were made i.e. first after 4 months and second in the 12^th months i.e. on the last day of warrantee period. Further as per the job sheet filed by OP2 the complainant was satisfied with the complaint made. Even otherwise it cannot be presumed that if the picture quality would not have been proper, then complainant would have been watching the green light on the TV for continuous period of 8 months i.e. from July, 2017 to March, 2018 and then again from March, 2018 to February, 2019. In ordinarily parlance viewing of television for the purpose of knowledge or entertainment on a TV installed in the house cannot be viewed at all if there is some defect in the picture tube/picture quality, as the moment TV would be opened/started the green light or the poor picture quality would be a continuous irritation for the viewers and it cannot be presumed that this continued for about 8 month in the year 2017-18 and the for 11 months in the year 2018-19. The filing of the second complaint on the last working day of the first year warrantee period also does not find favour with the complainant particularly when he has given in writing that TV is working properly. Therefore, complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OP2 with respect to attending the cause of the complainant nor he has been able to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the product. Therefore complaint of the complainant is dismissed against OP2.
16. Now coming to the complaint against OP1, who has issued the extended warrantee. The complainant has not filed any of the terms and condition of the extended warrantee and only had filed first complaint with respect to the product after 11 month i.e. in February, 2019. The OP1 has placed on record with job card and has submitted that there was no fault as observed by the engineer of OP2 in the picture tube even in the year 2019. Again if the picture quality would not have been proper from March 2018 to February 2019, then lodging no complaint for about 11 months, also shows that there was no serious complaint by the complainant with respect to the allegation made. The Job sheet further elaborates that the engineer had watched the TV for about half an hour and when the complainant was satisfied with respect to the complaint made, for picture quality/picture tube, he left and there is no rebuttal of that fact as complainant has not filed any rejoinder. The contention of OP that the service engineer of OPs told him that he would resolve the issue if the complainant would take extended warrantee for one year is also not substantiated by any evidence. Therefore this contention of complainant is also not well found against OP1. The complaint of the complainant against OP1 is therefore also dismissed.
17. Keeping all the facts in view the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to proof given deficiency on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant therefore is dismissed.
18. Copy of the order be supplied/sent to all the parties free of cost as per rules.
19. File be consigned to Record Room.
20. Announced on 29.08.2023.