Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/222

Mr. Irshad Ahmed Ansari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Techmart (Techmart Super Store (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2017

ORDER

    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                          Date of institution: 29.04.2013

Complaint Case. No.222/13                                              Date of order:16.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Mr. Irshad Ahmed Ansari S/o. Sirajuddin Ansari R/o  R-3/A-2/65-C Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.                                                   Complainant

VERSUS

1.        Techmart (Techmart Super Store (P) Ltd., B-1/624 First Floor, Janakpuri, New  Delhi.                                                                                Opposite party no.1

2.        Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd., Third Floor, Building no.10B, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122001.                                                                        Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Shri Irshad Ahmed Ansari complainant named above has filed the present consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act briefly stating that on 08.10.12 he purchased one Toshiba LCD model no.32 PB 1E from Techmart Ltd. here in the opposite party no.1 manufactured by Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd. here in the opposite  party no.2 for sum of Rs.17,500/-. In last week of February, 2013 the LCD was not working properly, therefore, he lodged complaint with Toshiba Customer Care. They told his complaint number 022813215 dated 28.02.13. Next day executive from the opposite party no.2 visited the complainant and checked the LCD. He told the complainant that screen of the LCD was broken from inside. Therefore, they are unable to repair the LCD. Whereas there was no external damage on the screen of the LCD. The LCD was faulty from date of purchase. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party no.2 to replace the LCD and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as legal expenses.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties.  The opposite party no.1 was discharged vide order dated 05.06.13. The opposite party no.2 filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the complaint is false and frivolous, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. However, it is admitted that complainant on 08.10.12 purchased the LCD for sum of Rs.17,500/-. The opposite party no.2 provides one year limited warranty. The screen of the LCD was broken from inside due to misuse and mishandling of the LCD. Therefore, the warranty had become void. The opposite party no.2 is not liable to repair the LCD without charges. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

When Shri Irshad Ahmed Ansari complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit in support of his version, he filed affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his version also relied upon invoice no.507 dated 08.10.12.

When the opposite party no.2 was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, they tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Nilesh Sharma narrating facts of the reply.  The opposite party no.2 also relied upon Annexure no.2 warranty card.

From perusal of the complaint affidavits and documents relied upon by the parties, it is common case of the parties that the complainant on 08.10.12 purchased

LCD model no.32 PB 1E from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.2 for sum of Rs.17,500/- with one year limited warranty.

The case of the complainant is that the LCD developed fault in the last week of February, 2013. On 28.02.13 executive to the opposite party no.2 visited the complainant and told that the screen of the LCD is broken. Whereas, there was no outside damage of the LCD. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is liable to repair the LCD.

Whereas case of the opposite party no.2 is that the screen of the LCD was broken from inside. Therefore, the warranty had become void and they are not liable to repair the LCD.

There is no evidence on behalf of the complainant to prove  that  the screen of the LCD was  not  damaged. Whereas from the affidavit of Shri Nilesh Sharma and documents relied upon by both the sides, it is proved that the screen of the LCD was broken from inside.

It is worthwhile to reproduce Clause no.12 of the terms and conditions of the warranty card which reads as under:-

 

“Clause No.12 of Terms and Conditions of Warranty

In case of any transit damage/customer misuse, as determined by TIPL Authorized Service Center personnel, the product shall be repaired by the service center on charges as decided by the service center, even if the unit is within the warranty period.”

It is also worthwhile to reproduce Clause no.5 of the warranty card which reads as under:-

“Clause No.5 of warranty voids

Defects caused to the product on account of Unauthorized repair, Tamper, Alteration, Modification and Dropping.”

Since the screen of the LCD was broken from inside, therefore, in view of the Clause no.5 and Clause no.12 of terms and conditions of the warranty card, the warranty had become void. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 is not liable to repair the LCD without repairing charges. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.

Resultantly there is no merit in the complaint. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order pronounced on :  16.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                  MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT