DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.201 of 19-02-2016

Decided on 31-01-2017

Gurmeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh R/o M/s Prabh Chunni Store, # 3337 Opposite Tungwali Jewellers Near Shanti Camp. Court Road, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.The Reliance Retail Market, Barnala Road, Bathinda, through its Authorized Person.

2.B.B.N Electronics, Intex Service Centre Near Guru Nanak Atta Chakki, Kamal Cinema Wali Gali Near Diwan Kataria Square, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor Davinder Singh.

3.Intex Technologies India Limited, D-182/2, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase II, New Delhi-110020, through its Authorized Person/Competent Person.

4.Intex Technologies India Limited, 201, Plantinum Plaza Near Judge's Bunglow Road, Bodakdev, Ahmadabad Gujarat, through its Proprietor/Authorized Person.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Smt.Rajni Garg, Advocate.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate.

For opposite party No.2: Sh.Davinder Singh in person.

For opposite party Nos.3 and 4: Sh.Aslam Khan, A.R

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainant Gurmeet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties The Reliance Retail Market and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that to meet his requirement and on the allurement of opposite party No1, he purchased one LED-450FHD08-VM14 for Rs.22,999/- vide invoice dated 26.1.2015 from opposite party No.1 with one year full guarantee/warranty and counter replacement of the LED.

3. It is alleged that on the very first day of purchase of the LED, it is giving problem in its operation as when it was put in use, it did not work and its picture and sound quality and output were very poor. Due to this, the LED did not work properly. The complainant several times approached opposite party No.1, it sent him to opposite party No.2, the service centre. The technicians/engineers of opposite party No.2 temporarily repaired the LED, but it did not properly functioning and it gave the same problem. On 20.1.2016, the same defect occurred. The complainant took the LED to opposite party No.2 for its repair/replacement, but opposite party No.2 refused to repair the LED and told him orally that there is manufacturing defect, which cannot be rectified and it will cost about Rs.12,000/- to make the LED in working condition, but even there will be no guarantee that the LED will work or not. The LED is in the custody of the service centre.

4. It is further alleged that the LED is still within the warranty period. According to the warranty card conditions and assurance given by the seller and company, the complainant is entitled for replacement or refund of Rs.22,999/- i.e. price of LED.

   On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to opposite parties to replace the LED with new one and also claimed Rs.95,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18%. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version. In its separate written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable against it. It is only a retailer and it has no role to play in rectification of the defects, if so exists in the instant TV set as it has also no role in manufacturing the TV set. As such, the complaint is misdirected, ill-conceived and not maintainable against it.

   Further legal objections are that opposite party No.1 is just a retailer of various electronics goods including TV set is not involved manufacturing process of the product. As such, it cannot remove the defects in the product as the service agreement of the product sold was with remaining opposite parties and not with it. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1. In case of any manufacturing defect in the product, its manufacturer i.e. Intex Technologies India Limited shall be liable and responsible and opposite party No.1 shall not be held liable. Opposite party No.1 has cited some cases law in its preliminary objections to support its version.

   On merits, after controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, it has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6. In their joint written version, opposite party Nos.2 to 4 have also raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is prima-facia no case against them. The complainant had already mentioned in his complaint that he approached opposite parties after 10 months of purchase of the product. No cause-of-action is arisen in favour of the complainant to file this complaint against opposite party Nos.2 to 4. The complainant is guilty of 'suggestio falsi' and 'suppressio veri' in as such as he has deliberately concealed the various material facts from this Forum. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is admitted that he purchased one Intex HD LED TV model Intex 40FHD08 on 26.1.2015 for Rs.22,999/- from the shop in good condition after having full satisfaction with the LED.

7. On merits, it is pleaded that the problem arisen in the product is due to its mishandling by the complainant. After controverting all other averments, opposite party Nos.2 to 4 have reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. Parties were asked to produce evidence.

9. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill, (Ex.C1); photocopy of complaint, (Ex.C2); photocopy of warranty card, (Ex.C3); photocopy of mobile number slip, (Ex.C4); his affidavit dated 2.5.2016, (Ex.C5) and closed the evidence.

10. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bhupinder Singh dated 16.8.2016, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.

11. Opposite party Nos.2 to 4 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Aslam, A.R dated 1.1.2016, (Ex.OP2/1) and submitted written arguments.

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

13. Parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

14. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

15. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that opposite party No.2 told him that there is manufacturing defect in the LED, but he has not placed on file any document to prove this fact. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that there is some manufacturing defect in the LED. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the LED with new one or refund of its price.

    Opposite party No.2 and A.R of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 have suffered statements to the effect that no ground for replacement of the product is made out and they are ready to repair the LED in question within 20 days. Opposite party Nos.2 to 4 appeared before this Forum on 1.4.2016, but they have given abovesaid offer to the complainant on 31.1.2017 at the fag end of the complaint i.e. after about 10 months from their appearance before this Forum. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled for some cost and compensation.

16. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the statement suffered by opposite party No.2 and A.R of opposite party Nos.3 and 4, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are directed to handover the LED in question to the complainant after repair.

17. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

18. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

19. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    31-01-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member