Delhi

North East

CC/246/2015

Hare Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 246/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Hare Krishan S/o Shri Chidda Lal R/o G-1/47, Block –G Pocket -1, Rohini,Sector-16, Delhi-85.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd 3rd Floor, Building No. 10 Tower-B, Phase II, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002   M/s Maruti Electronics Through its Pro./Auth. Signatory 1/2284/1, Ram Nagar Extn. Mandoli Road Shahdara, Delhi.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		14.07.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		12.03.2018
			DATE OF DECISION      :		14.03.2018

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

Mr. Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member:-

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had visited the shop of OP2 who is Authorised Dealer of OP1 to buy LCD TV and during which visit the representative of OP2 assured the complainant of good quality and post sale service of the product manufactured by OP1 and allured the complainant to purchase Toshiba LCD TV Model 32PB21ZE against total amount of Rs. 24,800/- vide Invoice No. 963 Book No. 10 on 29.08.2013. The OP2 gave three years warranty (comprehensive one year and extended two years) on the said LCD manufactured by OP1. The complainant has further stated that the said LCD function properly till October 2014 after which it started giving problems on screen display for which the complainant had to lodge complaint bearing No. R2G0039325 with the customer care of OP1. The service engineer of OP1 came to the premises of the complainant and gave false and lame excuse for the defect in picture tube caused by a ball hit despite complainant explaining to the said engineer that there is no family member who is of that age to play with ball in the house. However the service engineer paid no heed to the same and left the complainant premises without removing the problem despite the complainant’s claim that the said fault had taken place due to inferior quality parts in the subject LCD TV which could not last even during the warranty period. The complainant further submitted that after the said visit, nobody ever came to the residence of the complainant to repair the said LCD TV in question and alleged that OP1 and OP2 have failed to provide quality post sale service as assured at the time of selling of the product and alleged deficiency in service with respect to both the OPs holding them jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Lastly the complainant was constrained to serve legal notice dated 08.05.2015 on both the OPs asking upon the OPs to either repair the said LCD or replace the same with a brand new LCD of same model or refund the cost of LCD alongwith compensation and cost of legal notice, which notice despite having being served upon the OPs, had no effect on the OPs and therefore complainant, after exhausting all legal remedies available to him to resolve his grievance with no result, was constrained to file the present complaint praying for issuance of directions to the OPs to either replace the defective LCD with a brand new one having fresh warranty or refund the entire cost of LCD. The complainant has also prayed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation from the OP on account of mental agony, physical harassment as also litigation expenses and any other / further orders.
2. Notice was issued to both the OPs however only OP2 appeared and filed its written statement on 26.10.2015 on which date last opportunity was granted to OP1 to appear and file its reply on the next date of hearing i.e. 26.11.2015 on which date also OP1 failed to appear and was therefore proceeded against Ex-parte.

In the written statement filed by OP2, the OP2 took the preliminary objection that it is not an authorised dealer of OP1 and had admittedly sold the LCD to the complainant but with no assurance and it was the complainant who had purchased the same after properly verifying that the same was in good condition and that duty was cast upon the complainant to verify the condition of such electronic good at the time of purchase vide doctrine of caveat emptor – let the buyer beware and as such OP2 was not liable to pay anything to the complainant as he not the manufacturer of the said LCD which was manufactured by OP1 and was the responsibility of OP1 alone. The OP2 further took the defence that it purchases electronic goods from the distributor and thereafter sold it to the customers and in the instant case also, the said LCD was not purchased by OP1 from OP2 but from one of its distributors namely M/s Navrang. The OP2 also took the defence that OP1 is to be liable with respect to the warranty of the said LCD as manufacturer. The OP2 also took the defence that since the complainant had lodged its complaint with OP1 which had sent its engineer to repair the same, the matter was between the complainant and OP1. Lastly the OP2 took the plea that it is not guilty of deficiency of service of that the liability towards the complainant of both the OPs was joint and several and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

However, OP2 did not appear after filing of written statement and despite several opportunities granted to file evidence by way of affidavit, the OP2 failed to comply with the orders or appear and vide affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant on direction issued by this Forum on 23.11.2016, the complainant submitted that OP2 had shut down its business and its whereabouts were not known to the complainant.

3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by OP2 was filed by the complainant summarily denying the defence taken by the OP2 and reiterating his grievance as delineated in his complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant exhibiting the copy of invoice, legal notice and postal receipt in support of his claim.
5. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the complainant and addressed orally as well.
6. We have heard the ex-parte arguments addressed by the complainant and have perused the case file and documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant as the OP2 has not placed any documentary evidence in its defence and OP1 was ex-parte.

The sale of the LCD TV by OP2 to the complainant is an admitted fact by both complainant as well as OP2. However, the defence taken by OP2 is rather evasive and blame shifting / escapist in nature and content. By merely stating that he was not an authorised dealer of OP1 shall not come to his rescue as defence to wriggle out of its liability towards a bonafide and unsuspecting consumer who purchases goods/electronic items from his shop on assurance of high quality and good post sale service.

7. We therefore hold both the OPs jointly and severally liable for selling defective LCD TV to the complainant and failing to repair the same despite it being within warranty period. We therefore direct OP1 and OP2 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 24,800/- towards the invoice price of the defective LCD to the complainant. We further direct the OP1 and OP2 to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment inclusive of litigation cost. Let the order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days of receipt of this order.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 14.03.2018)

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar)   Member