Haryana

Ambala

CC/222/2017

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Toshiba India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder

08 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  AMBALA                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	222 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	04.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.06.2018

                                                                                          

Surinder Kumar S/o Sh.Sadari Lal, R/o 42/6, Ashok Vihar, Near Tabacoo Factary, Ambala City.

                                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, 3^rd Floor, Building No.10-B, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, 122002 through its authorized signatory.

2.       V.K.Electronics, 10375/6, Chowk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:             SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER

 

For the Parties:     Mr.C.M.Attri, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.R.K.Vig, Adv., for the Op No.1.                   

                             Op No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(D.N.Arora, President)

 

1. Brief facts of the case that the complainant had purchased a new LED T.V. model No.32PT200ZE make Toshiba on 02.11.2013 for an amount of Rs.29,000/- from the Op No.2 vide invoice No.2555 dated 02.11.2013 on the assurance of Op No.2 that the same LED would work smoothly and has also given his old T.V. for an amount of Rs.5000/- in exchange scheme to the OP No.2. After purchase of LED TV, the complainant got installed the same and started using the same as advised by the OP No.2 but the same did not work proper due to manufacturing defect. The complainant approached the Op No.2 on various dates for repair of LED TV but the OP No.2 did not sent his mechanic for its repair. In the second week of September, 2016, the complainant again requested the OP No.2 to remove the mechanical defect or to replace the LED with new one. The Op No.2 assured the complainant that a mechanic was already engaged by the OP No.1 and he would visit the house of the complainant within 2-3 days. In the 3^rd week of September, 2016, the Op No.2 sent a mechanic for repair of LED but he was unable to repair the same. Thereafter, a SMS was received by the complainant on his mobile that LED panel was defective and the same needed replacement. The complainant requested the Op No.2 several times either to repair the said LED or to replace the LED with new one but to no avail. Then the complainant issued legal notice dated 03.01.2017. On receiving the legal notice, the OPs replaced the defective LED with new one on 19.01.2017 and assured the complainant that there would be no complaint regarding functioning & running. After some days of replacement, the said LED started giving problem in picture tube. The complainant requested the OPs several times to remove the defects or to replace the LED with new one again but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant again issued legal notice dated 24.04.2017 to no action was taken by the Ops. This act and conduct amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material facts. It is submitted that the complainant purchased a Toshiba LED 32PT200ZE on 02.11.2013 from the Op No.2 who is one of the several retailers of consumer electronic goods and the value of the LED invoice was 29,000/- with warranty of three years. As per terms of the warranty, the Op No.1 repaired the LED during the period of warranty. On 21.09.2016, the complainant made a complaint regarding LED not working with the call center of the OP No.1 which was registered against complaint SR No.TIPLSR9H0034370 and an engineer from authorized service center of Op No.1 was sent for examination of LED. On examination, it was found that the panel of LED was required to be replaced and forwarded the request to the OP NO.1 for providing the replacement panel. Thereafter, the service engineer replaced the LED’s panel and the LED was ok. Thereafter, the Op No.1 did not receive any complaint. The complainant used the LED without any problem for a period of 2 years 10 months. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice issued to the OP No.2 through registered post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It is deemed to be served. The Op No.2 is proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.08.2017.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered evidence by way of affidavits Annexure R-A & R-B alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a LED TV model No.32PT200ZE make Toshiba for an amount of Rs.29,000/- from the Op No.2 vide invoice dated 02.11.2013 (Annexure C-2) with warranty of one year and extended warranty of two years (Annexure C-1). In the present case, complainant has approached the Ops first time on 21.09.2016 for rectification of the LED panel which was become defective during the warranty period and the same was replaced with new one as per Annexure R-4 which was duly signed by the complainant and gave the endorsement on Annexure R-4 that he was satisfied with the repair done by the service center of the OP No.1. Thereafter, on 22.04.2017 (wrongly mentioned 24.04.2017 in complaint) (Annexure C-5) sent legal notice to the Ops on the ground that LED TV in question was not working properly and after some days of replacement of the LED panel, the said LED started giving problem in picture tube, but the complainant has not placed on record any document/job sheet to show that he has approached to the Ops regarding non-functioning of the LED in question. He has sent only a legal notice to the Ops but only sending the legal notice does not prove that there was any problem in the LED. However, the complainant is duty bound to file an application in the Forum under Section 13(i)(c) under Consumer Protection Act to appoint any technical expert to verify the facts that whether the LED in question is having any manufacturing defect and require any repair work or not, but he did not do so, even then the complainant has also failed to produce the report of any expert regarding manufacturing defect of LED TV in question.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant fails to prove his case and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on:08.06.2018                Member                President

                                                                                      DCDRF, Ambala