Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/526/2023

LUXMI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIYA ELECTRONICS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/MANAGER/AUTHORISED DEALERS OF LG - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

05 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/526/2023
Date of Institution	:	04/11/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/08/2024

 

Luxmi Devi w/o Kalu Ram, resident of House No.264/B, Shahpur Colony, Sector 38-B, West Chandigarh 160015.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Siya Electronics, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager (authorized dealers of LG), Booth No.54, Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, 32 Corporate Avenue B/4 Floor, Mahakali Caves Rd, Radha Krishna Nagar, Aghadi Nagar, Andheri East, Andheri, Maharashtra 400053.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Arjun Grover, Advocate for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Luxmi Devi, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that on 12.6.2023 complainant had purchased one I.P. LED LG (hereinafter referred to as “subject LED”), from OP-1 (manufactured by OP-2) vide invoice (Annexure C-2) by paying consideration of ₹83,000/- and the same was having warranty of two years. Soon after purchase and installation of subject LED, it started giving problems of colour distortion, defects in display panel, vertical lines, blur display of images with fade colours etc.  Immediately, complainant brought the said defects to the notice of the OPs and requested for replacement of the subject LED, having inherent manufacturing defects.  Every time technicians/ engineers of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and tried to rectify the defects, but, miserably failed to do so and did not issue job card despite of repeated requests by the complainant rather assured the complainant that they would put the request of complainant with OP-2 for replacement of the subject defective LED with a new one.  Thereafter the complainant also sent a legal notice (Annexure C-3), but, despite of the same, nothing has been done by the OPs. As the OPs failed to replace the subject LED, within the warranty period, despite of the fact that the same is having inherent manufacturing defect, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, estoppel and concealment of facts.  However, it is admitted that the subject LED was purchased by the complainant from OP-1 on 12.6.2023, but, it is denied that the same is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. In fact, when the matter was reported by the complainant with the OPs,  engineers of the OPs visited the place of the complainant on 16.9.2023 and on inspection of the subject LED it was found that the same had been physically damaged, which resulted in breakage of panel/screen.  At that very moment, the service engineers had given estimate of repair to the complainant, but, she refused to pay the charges for repair. Copy of the job sheet is Ex.R-1.  Thereafter the complainant had issued legal notice to the OPs, which was properly replied by OP-1 vide reply (Ex.R-2).  In this manner, as the complainant herself has physically damaged the subject LED, which fact has been concealed by her even in the consumer complaint, and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject LED on 12.6.2023, as is also evident from the copy of tax invoice (Annexure C-2), and when complaint was lodged by her with the OPs about some defects in the same, engineers/technicians of OPs had inspected the subject LED, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the subject LED is suffering from any manufacturing defect, within the warranty period, and the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the same or refund of its price alongwith compensation etc., as is the case of the complainant, or if the subject LED is not suffering from any manufacturing defect, rather the same was found physically damaged and being not covered under the warranty, and also the fact that the complainant has concealed material facts qua physical damage to the subject LED, the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous and not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. So far as the case of the complainant that the subject LED is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect is concerned, onus lies upon the complainant herself to prove the said fact, but, except the allegations made in the consumer complaint supported with her affidavit, she has failed to prove any expert opinion/report with the help of which she may prove that the subject LED is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect.
   3. Not only this, in para 2 of the consumer complaint, complainant has alleged that soon after purchase and installation of the subject LED, which was admittedly purchased and installed on 12.6.2023, as is also evident from the tax invoice (Annexure C-2), the same started giving problems of colour distortion, defects in display panel, vertical lines, blur display of images with fade colours etc., but, surprisingly the complainant remained mum for about three months about the aforesaid alleged defects as she had reported about the same to the OPs for the first time on 16/17.9.2023, as is also evident from the job sheet (Ex.R-1). 
   4. The case of the complainant further stands falsified from para 11 of her rejoinder where she has alleged, for first time, that the OPs had delivered LED which was already damaged, regarding which not even a single word was alleged/uttered by her, in the entire consumer complaint.  Had the subject LED was already damaged on the day of its purchase/installation, complainant ought to have immediately approached the OPs for the replacement/removal of such defects and not kept on enjoying the LED for about three months i.e. till 16/17.9.2023.
   5. Moreover, even the entire consumer complaint is silent about the fact that the subject LED was found physically damaged by the engineers/ technicians of the OPs on the day when they inspected the same i.e. 17.9.2023, making further clear that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. 
   6. Not only this, as it has further come on record that the complainant was advised by the engineers/ technicians at that time vide job sheet (Ex.R-1) that the broken panel/screen of the subject LED can be replaced on payment of ₹24,300/- since the damage is not covered under the warranty, it is safe to hold that the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint by concealing all the material facts, as discussed above, from this Commission and sought replacement of the subject LED/refund of the paid amount on the ground that the same is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, which otherwise she has failed to prove on record.
   7. In view of the above, it is safe to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/08/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member