BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.251 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 05.07.2019

      Date of Decision: 03.12.2021

Ashish Gupta aged about 47 years son of Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta R/o  H. No.14, Ward No.45, Dilbagh Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Supreme Radios, G. T. Road, Civil Lines, Near Dena Bank, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner

2.       LLOYD C/o Havells India Limited, Regd. Office: 904, Surya Kiran Building, K. G. Marg, New Delhi 110001

          Corporate Office: QRG Towers, 2D, Sector 126, Expressway, Uttar Pradesh Noida, 201304, through its Mg. Director.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:        Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.                          OP No.1 exparte.

                    Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that he has purchased a LED TV make LLYOD, vide model No.GL40F080ZS HSN 8525 for Rs.31,900/- vide bill No.T-407 dated 08.06.2018 from the OP No.1 and the LED TV is under warranty for four years. The said product started giving problems in the very first week from its purchase which was duly informed to the OP No.1. The OP No.1 confirmed to lock the complainant and further informed that the problem will be rectified by the engineer of OP No.2. Then again said LED started giving problem in the month of May, 2019 which was duly informed to the OP No.1. The said complaint was lodged on 24.05.2019, which is still pending. During the pendency of the complaint, one of their senior executive/engineer visited the residence of the complainant and informed the complainant motherboard of the LED has to be replaced which may take 4-5 days. That thereafter the complainant many times informed/requested the OPs and the engineer telephonically to replace the damaged/under warranty part of the LED TV, but they are dilly-delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. On 12.06.2019, the complainant sent an email to the OP No.2, but all in vain. Then again on 15.06.2019 the complainant sent second reminder to the OPs, but the OPs have not given any response. The OPs had taken possession of the defective LED and gave receiving to the complainant. The OPs are lingering the matter on one pretext or the other as such, the OPs are involved in the unfair trade practice which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to return the bill amount of said LED i.e. Rs.31,900/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.33,000/- as legal expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts, as the complainant is guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Commission with unclean hands with sole intention of deceiving this Commission. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per the job sheet dated 24.05.2019 no sound problem was found and it was explained to the customer, but on customer’s request and for the satisfaction of the customer the service engineer of the answering OP visited the house of the complainant and changed the mother board which was under warranty at that time. It is further averred that the complainant filed false and frivolous complaint in order to extract money from the answering OP. It is further averred that the complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and has made this complaint in order to raise a premeditated, false and frivolous prosecution. It is further averred that the facts narrated by the complainant have been represented in a misleading manner. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the LED by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted and it is also admitted that complainant sent emails to the OP No.2, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                 Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2, filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint for the return of the bill amount of the LED purchased by him as the same was not in working condition since the date of its purchase. Despite the requests made by the complainant number of times, the complaint of the complainant was not addressed. He has also sought the compensation and cost of litigation.

7.                The OP No.2 has admitted the purchase of LED by the complainant, but it has been alleged that no sound problem was found, when the expert from their company visited the place and checked the LED. The complainant was never refused or denied any services by the OP No.2. The complainant himself has not produced on record any expert opinion or report to show that there was any defect in the LED. At the instance of the complainant the mother board of LED was changed by the engineer of the OP, without any charges as the same was under warranty. The requests made by the complainant vide email has been admitted by the OPs. As per Ex.C-1 the complainant has purchased the LED TV for Rs.31,900/- and has proved on record the emails written to the OPs Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 which have been admitted by the OPs. Vide Ex.C-4, the report was given by the OPs that they never found any issue regarding the sound and the unit was taken by the OPs to dealer shop for future action.

8.                From the above said documents and the circumstances, it is proved that LED was purchased by the complainant which was taken away by the OPs for further action. There is deficiency in service by the OPs though they have stated that they were always with the complainant and have changed the mother board of the LED also, but still the LED was not functioning well. However, it is alleged by the OPs that the complainant is not ready to take back the LED despite the request made by OPs for number of times for the same.

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against all the OPs and all the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the amount of LED TV i.e. Rs.31,900/- to the complainant. Parties are to bear their own cost. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

03.12.2021         Member                          Member           President