Haryana

Kurukshetra

143/2018

Rakesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unique Radious - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                     Complaint Case No.143 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution:04.07.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 22.07.2021

 

Rakesh s/o Shri Amarnath, r/o village Jyotisar, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt.  Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Unique Radios, Krishna Gate, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.
2. Lloyd Electric & Engineering Ltd., 159, Okhla Industrial Estate, 111 New Delhi-110020 and Plot No.2, Industrial Area, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur Advocate for the complainant.

                OPs ex parte.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rakesh against Unique Radios and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a Lloyd LED TV from the OP No.1 on 09.11.2015 by paying its value about Rs.19,000/- vide bill No.1201 with 12 months warranty of defective material and workmanship and 2 years warranty of panel after completion of one year warranty. That about 4 months from the date of its purchase, the said LED was not functioning properly and picture quality has been deteriorated and compromised on 24.03.2016. He immediately visited the OP No.1 and also made complaint on helpline No.18001377781 and thereafter, the engineer of OP No.2 visited his house and stated that the cost of repair would be Rs.16,000/- despite the LED was under the warranty period despite its panel was covered under the warranty period of three years. That against the defective LED, he earlier filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Commission on 31.03.2016 and same was continued upto 19.12.2017, when the said complaint was dismissed in default and he appealed against such order before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission allowed him to file fresh complaint. That admittedly, the cause of action has been arisen on 24.03.2016 when the said LED was not functioning properly, but he without any delay after 7 days filed a complaint No.91/2016 of 31.03.2016 and the same  remained under consideration for the period of 31.03.2016 to 19.12.2017 and thereafter, he upon the advice of his counsel, filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission on 29.01.2018 and the same was pending till 28.05.2018 and now he without any delay on his part, is filing the present complaint alongwith an application for condonation of delay. By providing the defective LED to him, the Ops have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.            Upon notice,  OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and complaint is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated that the LED was purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 was received in a sealed box from the distributor of OP No.2, which is manufacturing company and at the time of its sale, it was lying in a sealed box. At the time purchasing the same, the complainant read over the whole terms and conditions regarding the warranty/claims of the said LED which was mentioned on the bill. Hence, according to the terms and condition as mentioned on the bill as well as on warranty card, it is clear that only OP No.2 is liable to give the whole services/claims with the terms and conditions to the purchaser/complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any claims/compensation from the OP No.1. If this Hon’ble Commission reached to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get any such claims/compensation, then OP No.2 is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and the present complaint may kindly be dismissed against the OP No.1 with costs.

4.             Opposite party No.2 also appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and locus standi. It is further stated that the present complaint has been filed after a long delay. The cause of action, if any arose first time on 25.3.2016 and the complainant filed the complaint after a long delay. The complainant has to file the complaint after the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, but he filed the same on 03.7.2018 after almost 36 days of said order. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. That the OP NO.2 received the first call from the complainant which was registered on dated 25.3.2016 and its service engineer visited the premised of complainant and found the panel of LED broken. It was evident that either the panel was broken after being hit by some object or due to mishandling by the complainant himself and an estimate of Rs.12,000/- was given by the service engineer as the LED became out of warranty due to breakage of the panel. The LED was purchased on 09.11.2015, whereas, the instant complaint was raised first time on 25.3.2016 stating picture problem i.e. after about four months. Meaning thereby, the LED was running perfectly fine all this while. The warranty manual clearly specifies that “Breakage of LED screen/plastic parts due to mishandling” is excluding from warranty under the head “limitations of warranty”. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made against the OP No.2.

 

5.             The complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.

6.             The case was then fixed for evidence of the OPs but OP No.1 and 2  failed to appear before this Commission on 25.3.3021 therefore, OPs were proceeded against ex parte.

 

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the  complainant and have gone through the material available on the case file.

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that  the complainant had purchased a Lloyd LED TV from the OP No.1 on 09.11.2015 by paying its value about Rs.19,000/- vide bill No.1201 with 12 months warranty of defective material and workmanship and 2 years warranty of panel after completion of one year warranty. That about 4 months from the date of its purchase, the said LED was not functioning properly and picture quality has been deteriorated on 24.03.2016. He immediately visited the OP No.1 and also made complaint on helpline No.18001377781 and thereafter, the engineer of OP No.2 visited his house and stated that the cost of repair would be Rs.16,000/- despite the LED was under the warranty period despite its panel was covered under the warranty period of three years.  It has been further argued that against the defective LED, he earlier filed a complaint before this Hon’ble Commission on 31.03.2016 and same was continued upto 19.12.2017, when the said complaint was dismissed in default and he appealed against such order before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission allowed him to file fresh complaint. That admittedly, the cause of action has been arisen on 24.03.2016 when the said LED was not functioning properly, but he without any delay after 7 days filed a complaint No.91/2016 of 31.03.2016 and the same  remained under consideration for the period of 31.03.2016 to 19.12.2017 and thereafter, he upon the advice of his counsel, filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission on 29.01.2018 and the same was pending till 28.05.2018 and now he without any delay on his part, is filing the present complaint alongwith an application for condonation of delay. By providing the defective LED to him, the Ops have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

 

9.             In this case OPs had appeared  and filed reply but later on OPs were proceeded against ex-parte. The stand regarding delay in filing the complaint as taken by the OPs in the written statement is devoid of any merit.  The earlier complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed in default and then the complainant filed an appeal   before the Hon’ble State Commission and then he filed the present complaint before this Commission as per order of the Hon’ble State Commission.
Therefore, there cannot be said to be any delay in filing of the present complaint.

 

10.            Purchase of the LED by the complainant and defect therein are not denied by the OPs but the OPs has failed to prove the fact that the said defect was due to mishandling of the LED. The OPs have been proceeded against ex-parte. As per version of the complainant,  LED TV  was purchased by him from the OP No.1 on 09.11.2015 by paying its value about Rs.19,000/- vide bill No.1201 with 12 months warranty of defective material and workmanship and 2 years warranty of panel after completion of one year warranty. That about 4 months from the date of its purchase, the said LED was not functioning properly and picture quality has been deteriorated and compromised on 24.03.2016. He immediately visited the OP No.1 and also made complaint on helpline No.18001377781 and thereafter, the engineer of OP No.2 visited his house and stated that the cost of repair would be Rs.16,000/- despite the LED was under the warranty period despite its panel was covered under the warranty period of three years As the OPs have been proceeded against ex-parte therefore, the version put forwarded by the complainant goes completely un challenged and unrebutted and it is proved that LED purchased by the complainant became defective during the warranty period and the OPs failed to repair the same. Therefore, the OPs are  proved to be deficient in its  services and the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 19000/- from OPs. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.10000/- in lump sum for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses.

 

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund Rs.19000/- ( i.e. cost of LED)  to the complainant  and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges. The complainant is directed to hand over the  old defective LED to the OPs.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:22.07.2021 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                              President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

        Member                     Member.