Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased a LED TV of make Toshiba from Opposite Party No.2 vide Invoice No.0284 dated 13.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.28,000/-. Alongwith TV, three years warranty was provided to the complainant and was assured that in case any defect occurs in TV in question, the Opposite Parties would provide a new TV to the complainant or in the alternative they would fully repair the TV free of cost and would also provide parts of the TV free of costs. In the month of October, 2017 said TV started troubling in functioning as it turned dead and stopped displaying any picture or playing any sound. The complainant immediately contacted Opposite Party No.1 who further advised to contact Opposite Party No.2 and said Opposite Party No.2 further advised to contact in this regard to Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and handed over the TV in question for its repair/ replacement, but the Opposite Party No.3 refused to repair or replace the TV under warranty and raised the demand of repair charges and also advised to contact Opposite Party No.2 and again the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and told that there is manufacturing defect in the TV in question, but failed to give any satisfactory reply and till date, the complainant is running pillar to post, but to no affect and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to return the costs of TV in question i.e. Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is alleged that at the time of purchase, the TV in question was perfectly working and the complainant after being satisfied with the working of LED took the delivery. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 provides a warranty of one year only on the LED wherein the liability of the Opposite Party No.1 strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on the LED and the Opposite Party No.1 can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty terms. In fact, the complainant made its complaint with respect to LED on 5.10.2017 with the call centre of Opposite Party No.1 and immediately the complaint was lodged and a service executive from the service centre visited the house of the complainant who opined that the LED in question carries a one year warranty only and since the warranty on the LED had expired, any repairs could be provided on chargeable basis only. But the complainant refused to take the service on chargeable basis, rather choose to file the present complaint. However, the Opposite Parties are still ready and willing to repair the LED in question on chargeable basis. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is alleged that Opposite Party No.2 is not responsible for any manufacturing defect in the TV in dispute as the warranty of the goods sold by the Opposite Party No.2 is of Opposite Party No.1 company and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the TV in question from Opposite Party No.2 on 13.08.2015 but it is denied for want of knowledge that there years warranty was provided to the complainant, but the warranty is given by the manufacturer and not by Opposite Party No.2. Moreover, Opposite Party No.2 never assured the complainant to provide new TV to the complainant in case any defect occurs in TV in question. In nutshell, Opposite Party No.2 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. On the other hand, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 and hence, Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against exparte.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.A1 and A2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Nilesh Sharma Ex.RA1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R3/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
9. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased a LED TV of make Toshiba from Opposite Party No.2 vide Invoice No.0284 dated 13.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.28,000/-. Alongwith TV, three years warranty was provided to the complainant and was assured that in case any defect occurs in TV in question, the Opposite Parties would provide a new TV to the complainant or in the alternative they would fully repair the TV free of cost and would also provide parts of the TV free of costs. In the month of October, 2017 said TV started troubling in functioning as it turned dead and stopped displaying any picture or playing any sound. The complainant immediately contacted Opposite Party No.1 who further advised to contact Opposite Party No.2 and said Opposite Party No.2 further advised to contact in this regard to Opposite Party No.3. Accordingly, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and handed over the TV in question for its repair/ replacement, but the Opposite Party No.3 refused to repair or replace the TV under warranty and raised the demand of repair charges and also advised to contact Opposite Party No.2 and again the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and told that there is manufacturing defect in the TV in question, but failed to give any satisfactory reply and till date, the complainant is running pillar to post, but to no affect and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
10. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that at the time of purchase, the TV in question was perfectly working and the complainant after being satisfied with the working of LED took the delivery. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.1 provides a warranty of one year only on the LED wherein the liability of the Opposite Party No.1 strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it on the LED and the Opposite Party No.1 can not be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of the warranty terms. In fact, the complainant made its complaint with respect to LED on 5.10.2017 with the call centre of Opposite Party No.1 and immediately the complaint was lodged and a service executive from the service centre visited the house of the complainant who opined that the LED in question carries a one year warranty only and since the warranty on the LED had expired, any repairs could be provided on chargeable basis only. But the complainant refused to take the service on chargeable basis, rather choose to file the present complaint. However, the Opposite Parties are still ready and willing to repair the LED in question on chargeable basis. Similarly, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 also contended that Opposite Party No.2 is not responsible for any manufacturing defect in the TV in dispute as the warranty of the goods sold by the Opposite Party No.2 is of Opposite Party No.1 company and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Bare perusal of warranty card Ex.A2 shows that as per this warranty card, the company will repair free of charge any part or parts of the product, if the defect is due to the faulty material or workmanship and it is also mentioned in this warranty card that the comprehensive warranty for the product is 1 year whereas extended warranty is two years. It is not the denial of the case that the product in question started troubling in functioning as it turned dead and stopped displaying any picture or playing any sound with warranty period, hence the Opposite Parties can not wriggle out from its responsibility by not redressing the grievance of the complainant within warranty period. More-so, the complaint of the complainant is that the product in question is having manufacturing defect and said product can not be cured and hence, the complainant prays for refund of the money of the product in question. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that
“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that
“when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”
In the instant case, the mobile set in question started giving troubles within warranty period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that
“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”
As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A2. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.
11. So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that the TV in question of the complainant was suffering from inherent defects, which did not admit repair/ rectification. In his prayer, the complainant has prayed before this District Consumer Commission to refund the price of the LED in question i.e. Rs.28,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and we award the same accordingly.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct all the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund the price of the LED TV in question i.e. Rs.28,000/- (Rupees twenty eight thousands only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 29.11.2017 till its actual realization. All the Opposite Parties are also directed jointly or severally to pay compensation to the complainant for causing him mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (five thousands only). The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties jointly or severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced in accordance with law. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated:28.04.2022.
