BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 662 of 2010

Date of Institution :  27.10.2010

Date of  Decision   :  10.05.2011

Anuj Aggarwal aged 32 years, C/o Altrust Mounth, Near Tunnel No. 103, Shimla (H.P.), now residing at House No. 1004, Sector 4, Panchkula.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   Surindra Vision, SCO No. 366, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Prop./ Partner.

2]   Moserbaer Ltd., Corporate & Head Office 43-B, Okhla Indl. Estate, New Delhi – 110020, through its Branch Manager.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.R.K. Singla, Counsel for Complainant.

OP No.1 Ex-parte.

Sh.Manav Bajaj, Counsel for Sh. Sumeet Goel, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint are that the Complainant purchased one Moserbaer LCD (T.V) Model: MBI-47”, carrying one year warranty, from OP No.1, for Rs.74,000/-, vide Bill No. 215, dated 23.12.2008. During the use of the said LCD, the Complainant noticed that the said T.V. used to turn off automatically owing to some manufacturing defect in the motherboard of LCD. It was only after lodging numerous complaints with the OPs, Engineer of OP no.2 visited the house of the Complainant, and after inspection, reported that there was manufacturing defect in the motherboard, which needs to be replaced for the proper functioning of the LCD. Thereafter, on the persistent demand of the Complainant, the OPs changed the defective motherboard of the LCD. However, in the year 2009, the Complainant again found manufacturing defect in the LCD and the matter was reported to the OPs, who after dilly-dallying the matter, flatly refused to redress his grievance. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]         OP No. 1 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

4]         OP No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the motherboard of the LCD, as alleged. OP No.2 has provided a toll free helpline number for its customer to register their complaints; however, no complaint was received from the Complainant before 30.11.2009 i.e. for almost about an year after the sale of the LCD. On receipt of complaint, its Engineer visited the premises of the Complainant on 30.11.2009 and found the problem in the power switch which stopped functioning properly due to power fluctuation and irregular & un-recommended power supply. The same was rectified by the Engineer, without any charge. It was further pleaded while alleging manufacturing defect found in the year 2009, no specific defect was pin-pointed by the Complainant. As the warranty period had expired, OP No.2 advised the Complainant that he will have to make payment for the repair charges, which the Complainant did not agree and rather insisted the same to be done free of charges. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]         We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No.2 and have also perused the record.

7]         Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased the LCD in question on 23.12.2008, which was covered under warranty for a period of one year i.e. till 23.12.2009 and the same was functioning properly. It was fairly conceded that there was no manufacturing defect in the said LCD and when the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs with regard to the defect in the motherboard of the LCD, the OPs had replaced the same in the year 2009, itself. On 15.3.2010, the Complainant again lodged a complaint with OP No.2 and the complaint was, immediately, entertained and damaged part was replaced on 27.03.2010, that too after the expiry of the warranty period. The problem was found with the power supply card of the LCD, which was mainly due to fluctuation of the electricity, for which the OPs are not responsible in any manner whatsoever.  The said defect was repaired, even after the expiry of warranty period and the Complainant was asked to pay the repair charges, which he refused to pay. However, as a gesture of goodwill and to gain customer, OP No.2 had repaired the LCD, free of cost.

8]         In this backdrop, we feel that the OPs shall not be liable for any consequential loss or damage, which may be sustained to the product, after the warranty period and the Complainant on his whims and fancies cannot be permitted to alter the terms of warranty unilaterally by making it a life time warranty.

9]         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint being devoid of merits, deserves its rejection. The same is accordingly, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

10]        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.