By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a TV LG 24LB515A 61 CM. (24 inches) HD LED TV being serial No. F B A J 944YNU 001 (which is false) from the OP NO.2 at a cost of rs. 13,101/- on 24.04.15 and it was supplied by the OP No. 1 on 29.04.15. The said TV went out of order on and from 15.02.16. It was informed to the OP NO. 3 on 16.02.16 being complaint No. RNA 1602166079562. OP NO. 3 sent their technician to the house of the complainant to remove the defect who disclosed that the serial No. of the TV is not matching with the receipt.
Actual serial No. of the TV is 502 PLAG 065920 which TV had already been sold earlier at Chennai on 10.03.15. The technician refused to repair the TV as the TV was out of order at that time. Again and again the complainant reported the matter to the OP No. 2 but no result. The complainant alleged unfair trade on the part of the OP no.2.
Hence, this suit with the prayer as made in the complaint.
The OP No.2 has appeared to contest the claim application by filing written version through their Senior Corporate Counsel Sri Rahul Sundaram. It is the case of this OP that this they do not sell nor offer to sell any product and merely they provide online market place to third party to sell their product. The sellers are responsible themselves for the respective articles they supply to buyers through online. This Website is strictly bipartite contract between the customer and the seller. The OP contends that this claim petition is false, frivolous and abuse of process of the Hon’ble Forum and therefore liable to be dismissed. The complainant does not fall within the definition’ Consumer’ under the CP Act 1986. The OP further alleges that this present complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed with ulterior motive and mala-fide intentions and hence needs to be dismissed.
OP 3, the Director of the LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd has filed written version and contested the case. This OP denies all the material allegations made in the complaint petition and submitted that the case is not maintainable. The technician of their Co. did not refuse to repair the set but said that it was chargeable service as the online call history of the set showed that the free service is already over for the particular set. This OP prays for dismissal of the complaint application with cost.
The OP No.1 did not appear to contest the case in spite of service of notice upon them. So the case is heard against this OP no1 ex parte.
On the basis of the above case of the respective parties, the issues to be decided in the case is whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this complaint and whether the claimant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons.
Issue No. 1
The OP contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case as address of all the OPs of this case are out the jurisdiction of this Forum.
Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act says – A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – (a) the opposite party on each of the opposite parties , where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or branch office or personally works for gain or (b) any of the OPs where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the OPs who do not reside or personally works for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution.
In this case the complainant applied by putting online order through computer for purchasing a TV set. The complainant also paid Rs. 13,101/- and TV was supplied by the OP No.1 on 29.04.15 to the complainant at his address. So, it appears that putting order and delivery of the goods took place from and at the address of the complainant and we are of the view that this Forum has jurisdicti9on to try this case.
Issue no.2
We have carefully gone thro0ugh the materials on record. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the TV et from the OP Nos.1 and 3. The complainant also took permission u/sec 11(ii)(b) of the C P Act 1986 praying for filing this case against the OPs. Grievance of the complainant is that the TV set was delivered in the house of the complainant by the OP no.1 on 29.04.15 but it was not functioning from 15.02.16. The complainant informed the OP no.3 on 16.02.16 being complaint No. RNA 1602166079562.
We have perused the complaint. The OP no.3 sent technician to the house of the complainant on 17.02.16 to repair the set but the technician of OP No.3 told the complainant that the TV No. is not matching with the sale receipt. The actual Sl. No. of the said TV is 502 PLAG 06592 and the said item delivered to the complainant had already been sold on 10.03.15 at Chennai.
OP No. 3 filed brief notes on arguments where in para 2 the OP no.3 has stated that complaint was lodged before the OP No.3 and accordingly OP No.3 sent a technician to check up the set, the engineer, sent by the OP no.3 could see it online that the television has been purchased for the second time as the system was showing the name of some other purchaser as 1st purchaser at Chennai. It is also not disputed that the OP no.3 is not the direct seller and OP No.3 has not received any consideration money. The invoice is also not in the name of OP No.3. So we find that the OP no.3 is not liable for any defect of the TV set.
We have perused the written version of the OP no. 2. According to the OP No.2 the complainant has brought the TV from the independent third party. Accordingly the complaint does not fall within the purview of Consumer visa-a-vic to the answering OP. According to the OP No.2 complaint should be filed in New Delhi not in this Forum.
We have already mentioned that the complaint is maintainable ion this Forum and OP No.2 avoided to give answer that the TV was first purchased at Chennai and thereafter the OP no.2 sold the TV to this complainant. It is very much deficiency in service to sell a second h and goods to any consumer against money. This established that the OP no.2 is deficient in service in not repairing the TV west and/or not changing the TV in view of the complaint made by the complainant before them.
We do not find any fault of the OP No.1 in this case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the CC 335 of 2016 be and the same be allowed on contest against the OP No.2 and dismissed on contest against the OP No.3 and ex parte against the OP No.1.
OP No.2 is directed to arrange thorough repair of the TV within one month, alternatively will replace the same by supplying another new TV set from the date of this order.
OP No. 2 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing to comply the above directions, the OP No.2 will be liable to pay punitive charge of Rs. 100/- per day which would be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
