Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/263/2019

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thomson t.v - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Kaushik

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                    Consumer Complaint No. : 263 of 2019

                    Date of Institution             : 21.05.2019

                                                             Date of Decision               : 06.03.2024

 

Naresh Kumar son of Hanuman Singh R/o H.No.7, Mela Ground,Near Sector-23, Near Bits International School, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Thomson TV, Super Plastronics Private Limited, Plot NO.B-29, 30 & 31 Phase-2, Sector 81, Noida Uttar Pradesh-201305 through its authorized signatory.

 

2. Flipkart Internet Private Limited Vaishnavi Summit, No.6/B, 7^th Main,80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block Koramangala, Banglore-560034 through its authorized signatory.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Naveen Kaushik, Legal Aid Counsel for complainant.                        None for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Niranjan Lal Saini, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant ordered a Thomson Smart TV to OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, on 12.07.2018 having price Rs.13,499/- vide invoice dated 14.07.2018. The TV was delivered on 19.07.2018. It was installed on 24.07.2018 by engineer of OP No.1.  It is alleged that on 07.08.2018, the TV stopped working and only sound was there. Upon which, complainant approached the OP No.1 vide complaint no.6353502 and assured to resolve the problem within 72 hours. Technician of OP came but the TV did not work and they told that the TV has some internal damage and it will be replaced. So, OP No.l was apprised of the situation but they denied for replacement being product damaged.  Complainant has alleged that no damage seen in the TV from outside.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging defects in the product and deficiency in service on the part of OPs directing them to replace the LED TV with new one or repay the amount thereof with interest @ 18% per annum. Further to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for harassment besides Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate written statements.

3.                 OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action, and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is stated that once the TV was installed and was in running condition having no defect. Later on, when complaint made by complainant, it was got checked and found that the fault in the TV was due to negligence of complainant who did not follow instructions for smooth function of the product. Thus complainant is not entitled to get cover under warranty condition. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint  with costs.

4.                 OP No.2 in its written statement submitted that OP No.2 is an online intermediary that provides a platform for interaction of buyers and sellers. The delivery of the product is ensure by the seller alongwith logistic service provider and the product never comes in the possession of answering OP.  It is pertinent to mention here that the product was not installed by the service engineers of OP No.2, thus role of this OP is to a limited extent and it has not provided any services. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it, with costs.

5.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence.

6.                 No evidence produced on behalf of OP No.1 rather made a statement on 22.10.2019 to close the evidence. As such, evidence of OP No.1 was closed.

7.                 OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Reddy, authorized signatory as Ex. RW2/A and closed the evidence.

8.                 We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record minutely.

9.                 At the outset, the grievance of the complainant is that the TV so purchased by him from the OP became defective after some days of its installation. But despite approaching the OP, defects could not be rectified. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued that the TV was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the engineers of OPs, as such, the Ops are liable to replace the TV in question alongwith compensation for harassment and other expenses.

10.               On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that  OP No.2 is an online intermediary that provides a platform for interaction of buyers and sellers. The delivery of the product is ensure by the seller alongwith logistic service provider and the product never comes in the possession of answering OP and the product was not installed by the OP No.2, thus role of this OP is to a limited extent and denied for any deficiency in service on part of OP No.2  argued for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11.               Learned counsel for complainant to prove the case has placed on record copy of purchase bill of the TV in question (Annexure C-2). In support of contents of complaint that did not work properly has filed his affidavit while presenting complaint before the Commission. OP No.1 who is manufacturer of the TV in question has pleaded in his written statement that the TV  became defective due to negligence of complainant, which reflects that the television was defective, as alleged in the complaint, but the same could not be rectified by the OPs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of considered opinion that the TV was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the OPs.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally,  are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund the purchase amount of the TV in question to the tune of Rs.13,499/- (Rs. Thirteen thousand four hundred ninety nine)) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual realization, subject to return of the old TV set to the OPs.
2. To pay Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, both the amounts shall fetch simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

Announced.           

Dated: 06.03.2024