Delhi

East Delhi

CC/22/2017

RITESH KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TOSHIBA INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2019

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.           22/ 2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  27/02/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 15/02/2019                                                                                                

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          15/02/2019  

                                                                                                     

In matter of

Mr. Rakesh Kumar 

S/o Sh Krishan Kumar

R/o B- 14, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP 201011………..…………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1-The Director,

M/s Toshiba India Pvt Ltd. Hazrat Vision

3^rd Floor, Building No. 10, Tower B, Phase II

DLF Cyber City Gurgaon-122002

 

2-The Partners

M/s Navrang Electronics

F-3/5 Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051 ……………….………………………..Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate …………………Mr Sanjeev Nirwani   

Opponent 1 ……....……………………………M/s Lex Chambers Advocates

Opponent 2……………………………………..Ex Parte

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                

Complainant purchased Toshiba LED TV from OP2 vide model no. 32P230ZE invoice no. 153694 on 09/01/2015 for a sum of Rs 20,000/-under 3 years warranty (Ex CW1&2).  

Due to repeated problems, complainant lodged complaint to OP2, who replaced the TV with new TV model no. 32L5400, but replaced TV also developed some black spots so after complaint, OP1 service engineer rectified the defects on 12/01/2016. It was stated that TV again had some problem on 27/01/2016 and service engineer stated that some parts require replacement. Even after repeated reminders, no one attended or rectified, but after sometimes it was informed by OP1 that defective parts were not available in their warehouse and as soon as parts would be available, problem would be rectified. When no part was replaced since long served a legal notice for replacing the TV with stress on Delhi as one district and claimed compensation also (Ex CW1/3). Thereafter complainant filed this complaint and claimed replacement of replaced TV with all new features or refund of the cost of the TV Rs 20,000/-with 24% and compensation Rs 50,000/- and other relief from the Forum.

 

OP1/ Toshiba India Pvt Ltd submitted joint written statement on behalf of OP2 also through their nominated authorised Senior Manager Legal Mr Nilesh Sharma who denied all the allegations put by complainant. It was submitted that authorised service centre of OP1/ M/s Jeeves Service Centre was not impleaded as necessary party and also  admitted that the said LED TV 32 inch model no. 32P2305ZE having serial no. E18X14HO1632L1 was purchased on 09/01/2015 for an amount Rs 20,000/-including VAT amount Rs 2,222/-. This TV had one year standard warranty and two years comprehensive warranty where free repair of any parts were covered (Ex OPW1/2). It was stated that first complaint was registered on 18/02/2015 vide complaint no. TIPLSR2G0026903 which was attended by service engineer from M/s Jeeves Consumer Services on 20/02/2015 and rectified the defect and TV was functioning well (Ex. OPW1/3). Complainant again registered complaint on 21/02/2015 vide no. TIPLSR2G0030878 and after attending the complaint by service engineer, it was recommended for replacement of said TV vide no. DOA-TV/14-15/00406 which was approved from OP1 and new TV of same configuration was installed on 23/0302015 having new model no. 32L5400ZE and serial no. E485B4J01382G1 (Ex. OPW1/4).

OP1 stated that complainant again lodged complaints on 12/01/2016 vide no. TIPLSR1H0016648 which was rectified (Ex OPW1/5) and thereafter others complaints ere lodged by complainant on 29/04/2016, 30/06/2016 for appearance of black spots over screen As black spots appearing on screen would not be covered under replaced TV though said TV had run over one year without any problems (Ex OPW1/6 colly) as per service engineer’s remark. Also replaced TV was not covered under any warranty for extended warranty so no liability could be fastened on OP1 (Ex OPW1/7) still on goodwill gesture, OP1 rectified the defect vide complaint no. TIPLSR410015657. There was no deficiency in services provided by OP2 or any manufacturing defect was noted. Hence, complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the replies submitted by OP1. He stressed on invoice (Ex CW1/1) and various complaints lodged with OP1 (Ex CW1/2 & 3). He also submitted evidences on affidavit on his own affidavit where he reaffirmed on oath that despite of repeated complaints, OP did not rectify defects. Hence, deficiency of OP was proved and he deserves compensation from OP.  

 

OP1 submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Nilesh Sharma working as Senior Manager Legal with OP1 as an authorised representative of Company’s Resolution (Ex OPW1/1) and reaffirmed that their evidences were correct and were on record. It was stated that there were never service deficiency on the part of OP2 or ever any manufacturing defect was in their product. It was admitted that on the advice of their service representative for replacement of LED TV vide model no. 32L5400 was replaced and new TV of same feature was installed which had no manufacturing defect and no complaints were received though replaced TV had no warranty still services were provided. Complainant filed this complaint in the month of Jan, 2017 and filed again complaint with OP1 21/04/2017 for replaced LED TV vide no. TIPLSR410015657 which too was attended by service engineer on 07/05/2017 and since then replaced TV was working without any complaint. Hence prayer of complainant for replacing replaced TV was without any evidence of defect thus there was no reason for asking compensation from Ld Forum. So, prayed for dismissal of this complaint.  

Written arguments were submitted by both the parties and taken on record.     

 

Arguments were heard from both the Ld counsels and after perusal of material on record, order was reserved.

During arguments by the counsel of complainant who mainly stressed on taking compensation from OP for deficiency in their services and not replacing replaced LED TV. We have perused all facts and evidences filed by complainant and evidence by OP. It was admitted by OP1 that the even after rectifying defects in LED TV model no. 32L5400, the said TV was replaced by OP1 and replaced TV had no warranty though complaint was attended. It was seen that OP attended complaint on 07/05/2017 for complaint no. TIPLSR410015657 (Ex OPW1/7) and complainant filed this complaint and was admitted on 27/01/2017, this means OP did their services even after expiry of one year in replaced TV which too had even no manufacturing defects . As there was no evidence of manufacturing defects in replaced TV and no evidence of warranty or new invoice of replaced TV was put on record by complainant. So far compensation is concerned, it can be only awarded in just and appropriate way when damages have been proved by the complainant, but here in this case, complainant failed to prove any deficiency of OP and any evidence of damages he actually suffered. That being so, this complaint has no merits and same deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.  

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Consumer Protection Regulations and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur,  Member                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                           Shri Sukhdev Singh,  President