Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he purchased Components of Steg Audio, Amplifier of DS-18, ‘Intelli-play’ LED screen of OP-3 & reverse view camera, all from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 3946 dated 21.02.2020 in addition to services like car damping, installation, wiring etc. has also been extended which had been charged, however despite requests, the complete invoice for the same was not issued, rather Opposite Party No.1 gave receipts mentioning the amount charged for the aforesaid services and items. Further alleges that after passage of some time, the aforesaid items started giving problems like (i) back camera not functioning, (ii) led screen repeatedly showing ads, undisclosed at the time of purchase to the extent that it totally spoil and interrupt the audio experience of the complainant as well as block the back view on screen while reversing the vehicle, (iii) SOS facility promised at the time of purchase by Opposite Party No.1 not working in GPS tracking app of Opposite Party No.3, (iv) struggled a lot to get recharge after every quarter for internet services which has been earlier promised by Opposite Party No.1 as annual facility already recharged with the product of Opposite Party No.3, (v) touch sensitivity of the Opposite Party No.3’s screen deteriorated day by day and now its really hard to access various options on screen, (vi) Screen keeps lagging, freezing & even content playing on screen shuts abruptly which causes lot of inconvenience; (vii) the most dangerous part of these defective products is that volume keeps on fluctuating while playing the system or while turning on/of the ignition, due to which the complainant experience hearing related issues and damage to the vital hearing organs. Moreover, he experienced headache on number of occasions due to increase in volume abruptly, (viii) the quality of the sound which had been experienced at the time of purchase is way different now, as the sound is now cracking and not at all melodious to the listener; (ix) content that had been paused, starts, playing automatically without pressing play option, mainly due to interruption by on screen ads. In this regard, the complainant made so many representations and also lodged complaints with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the price of the products in question amounting to Rs.80,550/- and also to pay Rs.39,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till its realization and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant for the redressal of their grievances.
2. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte. Initially, Opposite Party No.2 was also proceeded against exparte, lateron Opposite Party No.2 sent written reply through e-mail and submitted that answering Opposite Party has been made wrongly as party to the complaint. Moreover, Opposite Party No.2 is neither directly, nor indirectly connected to the sale of the products in question and hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. Moreover, it may be the responsibility of S.K.Motors, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.1) to provide warranty (if applicable) to the consumer on the said products as a seller. Similarly, written reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 has been received through e-mail in which it is submitted by Opposite Party No.3 that complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is not maintainable in view of the fact that out of several products only Intelli-Play LED Screen system was of Opposite Party No.3, which was installed and trial given as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The electronic product was also accompanied with a booklet, describing is function, warranty policy and in case of any problem then the customer care number was also provided. Moreover, till date, Opposite Party No.3 did not receive any complaint related to the allegations made against the product which suggest that the product in question had no manufacturing or inherent defect and even such defect existed it should have been addressed within a week or a fortnight, so the alleged defects, if any existed with the products than the same may be attributed to wrong handling by the complainant himself and the Opposite Party an not be blamed for such defect. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 may be held responsible, only in case the product is defective or for deficiency in services and no for non/slow functioning of the product, is outcome of total mishandling by the customer, so the Opposite Party No.3 is not responsible for the alleged inconvenience caused to the complainant. On merits, the Opposite Party No.3 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 may please be dismissed.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and CW1/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, as mentioned above, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, rather an affidavit of Smt.Ritu Gupta, Managing Director and copy of warranty conditions received through e-mail by this office on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 which are annexed as Mark A and Mark B.
5. We have heard the complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint. We have perused the contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that he purchased Components of Steg Audio, Amplifier of DS-18, ‘Intelli-play’ LED screen of OP-3 & reverse view camera, all from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 3946 dated 21.02.2020 in addition to services like car damping, installation, wiring etc. has also been extended which had bee charged, however despite requests, the complete invoice for the same was not issued, rather Opposite Party No.1 gave receipts mentioning the amount charged for the aforesaid services and items. Further contended that after passage of some time, the aforesaid items started giving problems fully mentioned in the complaint as well as in affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and in this regard, the complainant made so many representations and also lodged complaints with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1despite service, rather chose to remain absence and at last proceeded against exparte. On the other hand, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 also did not bother to come present and defend its case, rather sent the written version through e-mail and no specific plea has been taken in its written statement to defend its case. Not only this, as per the contention of the complainant, the Opposite Parties did not give satisfactory reply to the complaints of the complainant with regard to defect in the product in question and it seems that there is some inherent defect in the product in question as alleged by the complainant and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 also held so. In the instant case, the poduct in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his duly sworn affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we partly allow the complaint of the complaint and direct all the Opposite jointly and severally to refund the price of the products in question i.e.Rs.80,550/- (Rupees Eighty Thousands Five Hundred Fifty Only) to the complainant (Subject to return of the products in question by the complainant) within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
