BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.76 of 2017
Date of Instt. 20.03.2017
Date of Decision: 11.03.2019
Baldev Raj son of Sohan Lal resident of 98-B/6, New Suraj Ganj West, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office, Building Office, 3rd Floor Building 10-B, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon (Gurugram) Haryana-122002 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Vicky Gift Centre, Bhargo Camp, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Sandeep Dhir, Ad Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. MS Jass, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs as he purchased LED of Toshiba Company from OP No.2, which was manufactured by OP No.1, after paying its price of Rs.19,500/- on 25.03.2014. The product has three years warranty by the company i.e. OP No.1 from the date of its purchase. After purchase of the said product, it started giving problem like blinking, automatically switching off and non functioning of pen drive in the said product. The complainant has made so many oral requests to the OPs and complained about the said problems in the said product, but the OPs paid a deaf ears to the grievances of the complainant. Then the complainant again lodged an online complaint to the OP No.1, then the employee of the OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant with respect to the repairing of the said product and the OP No.2 has also issued a job sheet service No.TIPLSRZH0034644. The employee of OP No.1 has reset the functions of said product and reinstalled the same in the LED.
2. That for some time the said LED running in good manner, but after the period of 15 days, it again started creating problems, the complainant become helpless and frustrated from their part and the complainant has also faced too much harassment mentally and physically. As such, the above acts shows unfair trade practice at their part. Thereafter, the complainant again tried to lodge an online complaint with respect to the above said product, but the same could not be lodged due to the non functioning of the helpline number of OP No.1, as such, the complainant suffered great mental tension and agony. The complainant has already made number of complaints before the OPs, but they have also failed to replace or to repair the LED inspite of number of requests and then the complainant served a legal notice dated 31.01.2017, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, pain, agony and harassment caused to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay expenses of postal charges, copying, typing and stationery of Rs.5000/- and cost of proceedings Rs.18,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP at all and is liable to be dismissed since being seller answering OP had no liability to repair the LED. The concerned company and its recognized Service Centre are liable to repair the defects of the LED as per terms and conditions of the warranty period provided by the company. The complaint has been instituted against the answering OP with malafide intention and on concocted grounds and further alleged that the instant complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and even the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. On merits, the purchase of the LED from OP No.2 being a sale dealer of OP No.1, is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely.
7. Precisely, the contents of the complaint are very much necessary to discuss here, the complainant has nowhere alleged in the complaint that there is any manufacturing defect in the product i.e. Toshiba LED 29”. The complainant simply alleged that after purchasing of the said product, it started giving problem like blinking, automatically switching off and non functioning of pen drive in the said product and the LED was submitted to the OP No.2, who issued a Job Sheet bearing No.TIPLSRZH0034644 and copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C-3, in the said Job Sheet, the defect has not been got recorded by the complainant and the warranty expiry date is mentioned 24.03.2017 and admittedly, the complainant purchased the product on 25.03.2014 and its warranty expiry date is 24.03.2017, but the complainant very cleverly did not mention any date on which any problem occurred in the LED rather simply alleging that after purchase, some problems was started creating therein. It is very much necessary to mention in the complaint on which date problem was created and even there is no date on the Job Sheet Ex.C-3. It is not the case of the complainant that he deposited the LED with the OP Service Centre and till date it was not returned rather the complainant alleged that after repairing the LED, the same was reinstalled and after some time, it again started creating problem, but again no date is mentioned in Para No.6 of the complaint. Moreover, the complainant has not alleged in the complaint that there is any manufacturing defect in the LED, if so, then the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the said LED or replacement of the same and even we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs because once the complainant deposited the LED with the service centre of the OP No.1 and the same was repaired and returned back to the complainant as per Job Sheet Ex.C-3. So, accordingly, just for the interest of justice, we find that the complainant is only entitled to get repair the said LED from the OPs.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua the above findings and accordingly, the OPs are directed to repair the LED of the complainant on charges basis, if complainant so desired. Further OPs are directed to repair the said LED within 10 days from the receipt of the LED in service centre of the OP No.1 and failing which the OPs will liable to pay compensation to the complainant of Rs.10,000/- as well as also face the liability to repair the LED in question. Accordingly, the instant complaint is decided. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
11.03.2019 Member President
