Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/157

Nikhil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soni Electricals and repairs - Opp.Party(s)

Neha Rana Adv.

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,ROPAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/157/2022
Date of Institution	:	09.11.2022
Date of Decision	:	20.07.2023

 

Nikhil Kumar son of Narinder Kumar R/o VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

                                                                        ……Complainant

                                        Versus

1. Soni Electricals & Repairs, Opposite Civil Hospital, Rupnagar through its Proprietor.
2. Lloyd LED TV having its registered office at 904, Surya Kiran Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110 001 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
3. Friends Enterprises, Sun City, Opp. Kamal Nursing Home, Rupnagar through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory. 

…..Opposite Parties

Consumer Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

QUORUM:

 

Shri S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Ranvir Kaur, Member

Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Member

 

Present:-

For the complainant:Ms. Neha Rana, Advocate.

For OP No.1            :None.

For OPs Nos.2 and 3  : Shri Dixit Garg, Advocate.

 

ORDER:

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 alleging deficiency in service on their part with the prayer forissuance of following directions to them:-

a)     to replace the above said defective 48” LED TV with the new one of the same brand; or

        to refund back the entire amount of the said LED TV along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of its purchase till its realization;

b)     to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation, on account of physical, mental as well as financial harassment suffered by the complainant: and

c)     to pay Rs.30,000/-, as costs of the complaint.

2.     The case of the complainant is thathe is a Doctor by profession and he is running a clinic at Ghanauli.  On the assurances and guarantee given by OP No.1, the complainant agreed to purchase one new Lloyd 48” LED TV made by OP No.2-Company from it. OP No.1 also told the complainant that OP No.2-Company was giving warranty of 60 months i.e. 5 years as festival season warranty on the purchase of new Lloyd LED TV and OP No.1 also gave assurances to him that if any fault or defect will be occurred in the said LED during warranty period, then, the OPs will either repair the said LED without any cost or if required, will replace the same with new one.  Swayed by the allurements given by the opposite parties the complainant purchased a new LED TV make Lloyd, Sr. No.3TE48G15236201JMD290661, Model No.L48UKT for a total sum of Rs.42,500/- including all taxes on 16.10.2017.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.14,104/- in cash and for remaining amount he availed the loan facility from Bajaj Finserv Pvt. Ltd. for which OP No.1 issued Bill No.SE-1-565 dated 16.10.2017.  Since the said LED TV was purchased by the complainant on 16.10.2017, therefore, the warranty of the said LED TV was valid upto 16.10.2022.  In the first week of August 2022 the above said LED TV stopped working and the complainant immediately informed OP Nos.1 and 3 about the above said defect occurred in the LED TV.  He also got lodged complaint with OP No.2.  Thereafter officials of OP No.3 being the service centre of OP No.2 took the defective LED TV to their service centre and assured to reinstall the same within a week after its proper repairs.  They also asked the complainant to visit the service centre of OP No.3 for the purpose of completion of formalities.  The complainant reached OP No.3 where signatures of the complainant on some setup proforma of the Company were taken by OP No.3.  After completion of the formalities OP No.3 demanded an amount of Rs.1,350/- from the complainant on account of repair charges and told him that they will not repair the said LED TV without payment of that amount.  The complainant having left with no other option deposited the said amount, vide receipt No.3745 dated 12.8.2022.  However the OPs failed to reinstall the said LED TV in the house of the complainant after receiving the repair charges and started mishaving with him.The complainant was forced to purchase new LED TV for his personal use in his house.  Thereafter the complainant also made a complaint to OP No.2 but OP No.2 also did not take any action on his complaint.  There is a manufacturing defect in the said LED and the OPs have not reinstalled the said LED TV in his house till the date of filing of the complaint.  The complainant has suffered harassment physically and mentally as well as financially.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to them.

3.     Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written statements.  In its written statement OP No.1 took certain preliminary objections to the effect thatthe complaint is not maintainable in the present form.  The complainant has not come with clean hands and is guilty of suppression, concealment and misrepresentations of true and material facts from this Commission.  This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.  OP No.1 is only retailer and sold the product on behalf of Company.  The guarantee and warranty has been given by the Company, which manufactured the product and the responsibility for any defect and repair after the sale of the product is of that Company. On merits, it is submitted that after satisfaction and choice of the complainant, he selected the said LED TV and after selection, the answering OP No.1 gave guarantee card, which was provided by OP No.2 to OP No.1.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1.  OP No.1 is only retailer and contract was signed between OP No.2 and complainant.  OP No.3 is the service centre of OP No.2 and all the conversation was held between the complainant and OP Nos.2 and 3.  OP No.1 has no concern with the said matter because it is only retailer and sold the said product on behalf of OP No.2.  Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.     OP Nos.2 and 3 in their joint written statement took certain preliminary objections and submitted that as per the last call dated 13.10.2022 the Technician of the OP-Company visited the complainant’s place to check the TV and found some issue with the main board (PCB).  The TV was taken by the said Technician to its Service Centre for repair.  Since the product was purchased by the complainant in the year 2017 and the fault occurred in the year 2022, the service centre faced some delay in procuring the spare part of the impugned TV as the parts were not easily available and the model had become obsolete.  After the repair was done, the Representative of service centre took the LED TV at complainant’s place to deliver back the TV but he refused to receive the delivery of the said LED TV.  OP-Company has already repaired the LED TV of the complainant by replacing the required part in warranty and it is lying at OP-Company’s service centre.On merits also similar averments have been made as have been made in preliminary objections/submissions. It is, however, submitted that warranty is limited to the repair of the product or replacement of parts only and further the warranty is provided against manufacturing defects. Denying all the averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.     In support of his case the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1 and documents i.e. copy of Bill dated 16.10.2017 as Ex.C-2, receipt dated 12.8.2022 issued by Service Centre of OP No.2 and 3for Rs.1,350/- as Ex.C-3, copy of Aadhaar Card of complainant as Ex.C-4, copy of his degree as Ex.C-5 and copy of bill of new LED TV purchased by him as Ex.C-6.

6.     In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of its Proprietor as Ex.OP-1.    OP No.2 and 3 have also tendered affidavit of their Senior General Manager, Harsh Aggarwal, as Ex.OP2/A.  Said Senior General Manager of OP Nos.2 and 3 also filed his affidavit dated 12.1.2023 in support of written statementalong with affidavit of Joint General Manager-Legal of OP Nos.2 and 3, Hina Ahmad.

7.     Heard.  The entire record has been perused.

8.     Admittedly, the LED TV in question was purchased by the complainant on 16.10.2017 from OP No.1 for a total sum of Rs.42,500/-, vide Bill, Ex.C-2.   The complainant paid the sum of Rs.14,164/- as down payment and remaining amount of Rs.28,336/- was got financed.  The said LED TV stopped working.  The complainant informed the OPs about the same and also made a complaint to them.  The technician of the OP No.3, which is Service Centre of OP No.2 came and took the said LED TV with him for its repairs.  The complainant paid Rs.1,350/- as repair charges, vide Field Service Report dated 12.8.2022, Ex.C-3.  The case of the complainant is that the OPs did not reinstall the said LED TV in his house after getting the same repaired.  However, the case of the OPs is that the said LED TV has been repaired and brought to the house of the complainant for reinstallation but he refused to get it reinstalled.

9.     In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is appropriate to partly allow this complaint and direct the OPs to carry out necessary repairs, if any, and hand over the said LED TV to the complainant after making make it functional/workable. They are also directed to make photography/videography while doing so.  The OPs are also directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,350/- charged by them for repairing the said LED TV and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by him including litigation costs.  Compliance of this order shall be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties as per Rules.  File be consigned after due compliance. 

10.   The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to paucity of staff.

                                                                     (S.K. AGGARWAL)

                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                     (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                         MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                      (RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                         MEMBER

Pronounced on : 20.07.2023