DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 628 dated 23.08.2017.
Date of decision: 27.08.2018.
Ram Mohan aged 44 years S/o. Sushil Kumar, R/o. Hira Bagh, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, ..… Complainant
Versus
- Toshiba Company having its dealer Kumar Radios, Opp. Water Tank, Jhansi Rani Chowk, Jagraon (142026).
- Toshiba Company having its service centre at Jeeves Consumer Service Centre, Dhian Singh Complex, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
For complainant : Sh. Ram Mohan in person.
For OPs. : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that he purchased Toshiba LED 32p2400ze for amount of Rs.20,000/- from OP2 on 27.07.2015. Said LED was having warrantee for three years. However, 10 days before filing of the complaint dated 23.08.2017, display of LED became defective. On raising of issue through customer care centre on 21.07.2017, one mechanic namely Vicky visited house of complainant and checked LED for finding display to be defective. Said mechanic assured for resolving the LED problem. Even said mechanic claimed that LED will be delivered by OP company within one week. However, LED has not been delivered by OP company to complainant after repairing the same. Thereafter, complainant again contacted OP company, but reply was received to the effect that they are not responsible for repair/replacement. Request for repair and replacement of LED was made many times along with alternative request for return of the amount, but those have not been accepted. Complainant claims that he has been mentally harassed owing to conduct of OPs and that is why he filed complaint for seeking direction to refund the paid amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per month from the date of purchase. In the alternative direction for replacement of the defective LED with new one sought along with compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.30,000/-.
2. In reply submitted on behalf of OP1, it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable against OP1, even though warrantee of three years on the disputed LED was available. As per terms and conditions of warrantee only services to be provided and the defects, if any, to be got removed. Those services never refused to complainant. Complaint alleged to be filed for harassing OP, despite the fact that OP never refused to provide repair services of the LED. Complainant purchased LED from OP1 and not from OP2. If any conversation of complainant took place with OP company through customer care, then same is a matter between complainant and company, regarding which OP1 has no knowledge. Complainant never contacted OP1 after the alleged defect arose in the LED. Complainant himself has admitted in the complaint that on arising of defect in the LED, he directly approached OP2. No allegation leveled against OP1 regarding refusal to repair LED. If the customer approaches company directly through customer care, then dealer has nothing to do with that. Despite that OP1 assures this Forum that he will get the LED repaired from the company as early as possible. Admittedly, disputed LED was sold on 27.07.2015 and the problem arose after 2¼ years of purchase. During warrantee period only repair to be done and exchange or the refund not permissible because Toshiba Company is a Japanese brand. During guarantee period only such branded things are to be replaced or repaired. It is claimed that a false complaint has been filed for tarnishing the image of OP, due to which it reserves right to file civil or criminal case of defamation. All other averments of the complaint denied.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and then closed evidence.
4. OP1 did not turn up and nor produced any evidence despite grant of last and final chance and as such, in view of non appearance of OP1, he was proceeded against exparte. OP2 even is exparte before the stage of filing of written reply.
5. By way of additional evidence, complainant tendered in evidence CD Ex. CA along with affidavit Ex. CB of Rajiv Kumar, Ex. CC (copy of ADHAR card) and Ex. CD (certificate of Ram Mohan) and thereafter closed evidence.
6. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments were heard and records gone through minutely.
7. After going through reply submitted by OP1 and contents of affidavit Ex. CA as well as invoice Ex. C4, it is made out that Toshiba LED was purchased by complainant for Rs.20,000/- on 27.07.2015. That LED was having warrantee for three years and as such, this warrantee to continue till 26.07.2018. However, defect in LED took place in July 2017, due to which on contact to the company through customer care centre, one mechanic Vicky visited house of complainant and found display of LED defective after checking. These assertions contained in the complaint and affidavit Ex. CA gets corroboration from SMS snap shot produced as Ex. C1 to Ex. C3. Through Ex. C1 thanks were expressed to complainant for contacting Toshiba by disclosing that his service request no.TIPLSR217H00467 is registered. So contents of Ex. C1 establish that complainant contacted OP company on 29.07.2017 for lodging complaint regarding problem in LED TV. That problem in LED TV has not been removed till date despite the fact that warrantee still exists and as such, certainly OPs provided deficient services.
8. Certificate Ex. CD of complainant shows that CD Ex. CA contains electronic record voice on the notes recorded on 06.09.2017 in his mobile No.92167-00506. Contents of affidavit Ex. CB of Rajiv Kumar establishes that he visited with complainant on 27.07.2015 at the time of purchase of LED TV in question. As per this affidavit Ex. CB, Toshiba LED TV purchased by the complainant having warrantee/guarantee of three years, but the defect occurred therein within 2 years of the purchase. Further as per this affidavit Ex. CB, owner of the shop from where the LED TV, purchased called upon, the complainant to submit original invoice. That owner of the shop claimed that guarantee will come to an end with effect from today itself. Owner of the shop refused to give receipt of deposit of original invoice and as such, it is obvious that evidence produced on record establishes that the LED of Toshiba company purchased by the complainant developed defect within warrantee period, but defect has not been removed despite approach by complainant to company as well as dealer. Defect is in the display and as such, complainant entitled for replacement of the LED in question with new one of same model, but if same model not available, then with LED of worth of Rs.20,000/-. Replacement must be done by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. It is claimed by complainant that now Toshiba company has discontinued manufacturing LED TV and if such situation has arisen, then in the event of non availability of LED of same model or of equal worth with OPs, the OPs will refund the price amount of Rs.20,000/- within 60 days of receipt of copy of order. Complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and was dragged in this litigation because of the fault of OPs in not repairing the LED TV and as such, composite amount of Rs.8,000/- for mental agony and harassment as well as costs of litigation allowed. In case this composite amount of Rs.8,000/- not paid within 30 days of receipt of copy of order, then complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on amount of Rs.8,000/- from today till payment.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OPs to replace the LED in question with new one of same model and if same model not available, then sith LED of worth of Rs.20,000/-. This replacement be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. In case the LED of same model or equal worth not available with OPs, then refund of paid amount of Rs.20,000/- be done by OPs within 60 days of receipt of copy of order. Complainant entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) including costs of litigation itself. Payment of composite amount of Rs.8,000/- as awarded as compensation and costs be made within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum thereon from today till payment of this composite amount of Rs.8,000/-. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Vinod Gulati) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:27.08.2018.
Gobind Ram.
