DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No.244/16

In the matter of:

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

Order by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that on 27 September 2015 he had purchased an INTEX LED TV model No. 3207 for a sum of Rs. 15,600/- in cash vide Invoice No. 567 from OP1- the Dealer, OP2 was the manufacturer.  The complainant has stated that the OP1 had given one year warranty with respect to the said LED and had assured the complainant for timely repairs if needed. The complainant stated that on 11.7.2016 the said LED got closed down/became out of order and did not get switched on for which problem the complainant contacted OP1 and customer care of OP2 vide complaint no. 6071190010145 but despite assurance no engineer / representative of OPs came to check the said LED. Further on 13.7.2016 the when complainant called up the customer care of OP2, to his shock & surprise he was informed by employee of OP2 that his LED has been repaired and the complaint has been cleared when actually nobody had visited the complainant’s premises. That the complainant registered 2^nd complaint vide complaint no. 607287031004 and was again told that employee of OP will come to check his LED, but nobody came again and after repeated complaint of the complainant to OP1 and despite sending the purchase bill of the LED to OP1 as asked for the OP1 tried to avoid his responsibility and shift the same on OP2. The complainant had stated that after 2 or 3 days of 2^nd call, one employee of OP2 had visited his residence and taken the details of LED and assured he will bring some parts of LED from the service centre on the next day. However, nobody came to repair the LED for next 10 to 15 days. After several telephonic complaints made to OP2 by the complainant, another employee of OP2 came to complainant’s residence and told him that part of his LED had been out of order and he will come again in 1 or 2 days to repair the LED. Thereafter the complainant spoke to one Mr. Aman employee of head office who assured him that his LED would be repaired shortly and the complainant was even asked later on telephone by OP whether his LED was repaired or not, whereas actually no person came to his house to repair the same. The complainant states that he has been mentally, physically and economically harassed by the OPs and has suffered irreparable loss due to illegal acts of OPs, thereby holding the OPs deficient in service and jointly and vicariously liable for loss suffered by him and that OPs have been very much negligent and committed breach of trust and business principles and are liable to pay the price of LED, compensation for mental and economically loss and litigation charges. Complainant has prayed for refund of the cost of LED i.e. Rs. 15,600/-,          Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- other miscellaneous expenses.

The complainant has stated that he had also approached Delhi Govt. Mediation & Conciliation Centre (Delhi Disputes Resolution Society, Regd.) Nand Nagri by way of complaint dated 1.8. 2016 vide mediation reference no. 1155/NN/DIR/16 and despite three notices to OP2 he did not appear before the mediation cell and thereafter the complainant had no option but to approach this Forum against both the OPs.

Complainant has annexed copy of I card, copy of LED retail invoice No. 567 dated 27.9.2015, copy of mediation conciliation report dated 19.9.2016,

2. Notice was issued upon OPs, and OP2 did not appear except once in the beginning of the case and was accordingly proceeded against Ex-parte. However written statement was filed on behalf of OP1.
3. In the written statement filed by OP1 it took plea that it was Authorized distributor of OP2 and service, replacement and repair of the said LED was liable to be rectified by OP2 who was the manufacturing company and solely liable to rectify the defects and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1 and the information about the defect in LED was informed by OP1 to OP2 immediately as soon as OP1 received the complaint from the complainant.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by Shri. Ashish Kumar, partner of OP1 reiterating that the onus of service, replacement and repair of the aforesaid LED purchased by the complainant was sole liability of OP2 because OP1 was merely a distributor and OP2 was the manufacturing company and therefore, OP1 had nothing to do with the defects of said LED and lastly stated that in the bill of OP1 it was clearly mentioned that the guarantee / warranty and service of the sold item will stands only of the manufacturing company (OP2 herein) and not OP1.
6. Written arguments filed by both the parties and oral arguments were addressed.
7. We have heard the arguments and have perused the case very carefully. It is not in dispute that the LED in question had got spoiled. The only fact which is in dispute is whether OP2 could be held liable and under legal obligation to rectify the defect of the said LED given the argument put forth by OP1 that he was a mere distributor / dealer of OP2 which was the manufacturing company of the said LED. We have applied our judicial mind and it is already a settled law that the manufacturer & dealer are jointly and severally liable for manufacturing defects and the complainant could not be made to suffer for problem between dealer & manufacturer. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Ashoke Khan vs Abdul Karim (2006)ICPR 173 (NC) has relied upon judgment rendered in Philips Mempillil vs Premier Automobiles Ltd and reiterated the position that dealer /agent and manufacturer would be jointly and severally liable and further held that though it is true that normally such liability with regard to manufacturing defect is to be borne by manufacturer, but that would not mean that the dealer is absolved from jointly and severally liability. Further the National Commission in Mahantayya vs MD Om Prakash of M/s Maha Laxmi Tractor (2006)ICPR 263 (NC) has held that for the wrongs committed by agent or the dealer the consumer is entitled to have reimbursement from the manufacturer/principal and the dealer / agent and the liability of manufacturer and dealer is joint and several.

In view of the settled proposition of law the OP1 cannot wriggle out of its responsibilities by saddling this same on OP2 and as such both the OPs are guilty of committing in deficiency in service qua the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby direct OPs jointly to refund the cost of LED to the tune of Rs. 15,600/ alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We also award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for pain, agony and harassment undergone by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

The OPs are directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from its receipt. Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.       

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on   15.11.2017)