Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/229/2023

MILI MAHAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TCL - Opp.Party(s)

BRIJINDRA SINGH

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/229/2023
Date of Institution	:	2.5.2023
Date of Decision	:	2/1 /2024

 

Mili Mahajan wife of Sh. Vipin Mahajan resident of House No.336, near little Blossom School, ward No.4, Khara, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab pin 140301.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. TCL through its Managing Director, Boomerang Building, office No.B2-705, 7^th floor, Chandivali farm Road, Andheri(E) Mumbai, Mumbai City, MH-400072, India.
2. Verma Electronics (through proprietor/Shop Manager), Plot No.860, Kishangarh near Chandigarh Grand Hotel, Service Station.
3. Saini Electronics (through proprietor/Shop Manager) Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Near Nijjer Chowk, Kharar District-Mohali (SAS Nagar) Punjab.      

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate proxy for Sh. Brijindra Singh Bajwa, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs  exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that OP No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing the consumer durable electronic/electric consumer durables like TV, Air Conditioner etc and the OP No.2 is the service provider of OP No.1. OP No.3 is engaged in the business of selling the electronic/electrical products to the public for a consideration apart from other activities.  On 10.1.2021 the complainant vide bill Annexure C-1 purchased 43” LED  of TCL  model (hereinafter to be referred as subject LED)  from OP No.3. It was manufactured by OP No.1 and OPs have given a guarantee of 3 years on the subject LED. The subject LED after running smoothly for about a year developed some white lines on the screen as a result of which the video quality of the same got affected and nothing was visible on screen. The complainant immediately contacted OP No.2 for repair of the LED and as OP No.3 had asked the complainant either to contact OP No.1 or its service centre. Accordingly, the complainant got the complaint registered with OP No.1 on 1.3.2023. Finally  on 19.3.2023 a representative  of OPs visited the house with re-furbished  LED and had replaced part of the subject LED from the refurbished LED and message qua the job card was also sent to the complainant. Even after replacing part from re-furbished LED again after 4-5 days  of the replacement the same problem has occurred in the subject LED and subsequently the complainant again contacted the OPs but the did not repair the subject LED. It is further alleged that the subject LED was covered under the warranty and the same is not working and has not been repaired by the OPs and the problem is still in the same. The aforesaid act  of the OPs 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 were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, OPs No.2&3  were proceeded against ex-parte on 22.6.2023 and   OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte on 25.9.2023 respectively.

2. In order to prove their case, complainant has tendered/proved her evidence by way affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that the complainant had purchased the subject LED from the OP No.2 on 10.1.2021 for sale consideration of Rs.25890/- as is also evident from copy of tax invoice Annexure C-1, and defect in the screen of the subject LED was noticed within warranty period as nothing is visible in the screen of the same despite of repair work done by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is deficiency on the part of the OPs  and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant and for that purpose the entire evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. It is the case of the complainant that after about one year  during the warranty period the problem  started in the subject LED and the complainant lodged complaint with regard to the same with OP No.1 on 1.3.2023 i.e. after two years of the purchase of the subject LED. It is further case of the complainant that on 19.3.2023  some representative/agent of the OPs came  for repair  of the subject LED  and the same was repaired  but after 4-5 days the same problem again occurred in the subject LED and as such the OPs could not set right the defect occurred in the subject LED despite request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.
   3. It is apparent from record that the defect occurred in the subject LED after two years of its purchase and the complainant lodged the complaint on 1.3.2023 as is evident from para 7 of the complaint. The complainant categorically stated  in para 5 of the complaint that the subject LED was having 3 years of warranty but in support of her contention the complainant has not produced warranty card of the subject LED corroborating her contentions. Thus, in the absence of warranty card depicting three years warranty of the subject LED and without any concrete evidence, we cannot assume that the subject LED was having three years warranty and the defect has occurred within the warranty period. 
   4. However, it has come on record  that the subject LED was repaired by the OPs vide job number IN032023001338-01 but the said defect again occurred and despite request made by the complainant the OPs, did not repair the same again and the said act of OPs certainly amounts to deficiency of service on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs.
   5. The contention of the complainant that the subject LED be replaced or  cost thereof be refunded cannot be acceded to, as the complainant has utterly failed to prove on record that the subject LED was having manufacturing defect by producing on record any expert opinion of a technically qualified person. However, as discussed above, the OPs have failed to remove the defect in the LED  despite repair work done by them and did not respond to the subsequent request of the complainant for repair of the same, which caused immense harassment to the complainant for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.
   6. Since the complainant has not adduced on record any warranty card to show that the defect occurred during warranty period nor adduced any expert opinion to prove that the subject LED was having manufacturing defect, it will meet the end of justice if an amount of Rs.6000/- is ordered to be paid by the OPs to the complainant towards compensation for causing her mental agony and physical harassment.    
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹6,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
2. to pay ₹4000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/1/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member