BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 32 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 22.01.2021

      Date of Decision: 01.03.2024

S. Jatinder Pal Singh S/o Late Raghbir Singh R/o House No.41, Street number 15, Friends Colony Opposite DAV College, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Usha Refrigerator & Air Conditioner, 463, Lajpat Nagar Market,       Jalandhar.

2.       LLoyd Manufacturing Co., Registered Office: 904, Surya Kiran         Building, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.

3.       Customer Care Executive, Havells India Ltd., QRG Towers, 2D,       Sector- 126, Expressway, Noida-201304.

4.       Havells India Limited, Noida, Corporate Office, QRG Towers,          2D, Sec- 126, Expressway Noida-201304 U.P (India).

5.       Sh. Sumeet Singh, Local Service Coordinator, Llyod      Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab Mob.       No. 9646305669

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Amit Sharma, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                    OPs No.1 & 5 exparte.

                   Sh. Nakul Kapoor, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 to 4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a respectable person of the society serving on a high post in the police forces. OP No.2 is doing the business of manufacturing and supplying LED TV in different states of India and also doing the business in Jalandhar through its authorized agents i.e. OP No.1. OP No.4 is the owner/authority of OP No.2 and OPs No.3 & 5 are providing the customer care services i.e. taking of complaints and discharging repair services under the control of O.P no.2&4. The complainant purchased a Lloyd 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No.L 43F2JONS, having serial no.BOHGG20P02002 at the cost of Rs.33,000/- from OP No.1 authorized retail outlet for OPs No.2 and 4 on 09.02.2019 and the product was paid for in cash and the same had been purchased with hard earned money of the complainant. At the time of purchase of LED Smart Android TV and Llyod 1 ton split AC, OP No.1 specifically told the complainant that the mite brand Lloyd is having a much superior LED TV, than any other brand in the market at that time and any type of parts, if needed for repair and maintenance of the product is easily available in the market at any point of time and that OPs have a very quick and efficient service network. However from the month of July, 2020, well within the warranty period, the complainant started facing problem in the Llyod LED Smart android TV, which was purchased from OP No.1, the LED developed a problem causing a black shadow cast on all four corners of the said LED. The complainant after continually trying to contact the customer care support telephonically for a week finally was able to lodge a complaint on 26/07/2020 at 12:57 pm with OP No.3 on customer care toll free number 18001020666 and complaint bearing job ID. 2607205789092, was generated. Technician named, Shubh Kumar gave a call to the complainant on 27/07/2020 and informed the complainant that since he had been assigned the job and was directed to visit and carry out the necessary steps for repair he is visiting for the same, without even enquiring about the availability of the complainant who is posted out of Jalandhar. The said technician opened up the Llyod 43" Smart android LED TV and simply cleaned it and submitted it as a resolved matter but the problem instead increased. So the technician Shubh Kumar informed the Complainant that the LED panel needs to be replaced with a new one. Thereafter the technician himself spoke to a local service coordinator by the name Mr. Sumeet Singh and lodged a complaint with Opposite parties for replacement of the Llyod 43" Smart android LED TV. The technician Shubh Kumar told the complainant that the Llyod 43" Smart android LED TV would be replaced but it was a 10 days long process. However, thereafter there was no intimation/communication from the opposite parties in any manner whatsoever. However after not getting any response from the OPs the Complainant called up technician Shubh Kumar on 10/08/2020 on his mobile regarding the progress in replacement of the Llyod 43" Smart android LED TV, the technician after confirming with OP No.5 told the complainant that the LED panel had still not been received at the service centre and that it will take 2-3 days more to reach. The complainant was also provided with the phone number of Mr.Sumeet Singh (Local service coordinator to Llyod, Jalandhar) for further correspondence. However afterwards the complainant called up OP No.5 many times but to no avail, never received a positive response from OP No.5. The complainant left with no other choice, himself visited the Llyod service centre, Nakodar chowk near Mann scanning centre on 24/08/2020 in this respect and met with OP No.5 who told the complainant that they don't have the said LED Panel i.e. Llyod 43" Smart android LED TV at all and was instead offered a simple 43" inch LED TV which the complainant refused to accept. This highly disappointing attitude of the OPs left the complainant with no solution to his problem. However, when after a few days the          complainant checked the status for his complaint online. To the utter surprise of the complainant it again showed as cancelled and he was again made to go through the ordeal of again lodging a new complaint on 28/08/2020 registered vide job ID 2808206158591 with description "LED panel faulty. Need to replace". After much persuasion and follow up, OP No.5 called up the complainant on 02/09/2020 on mobile and sent the detail of model L43U2AOKA 108 cm (43 inches) Smart Ultra HD 4K LED TV (BLACK) on Whatsapp of the complainant with the information of the price difference. Complainant after checking the specifications of the model offered, agreed as he was not given any other option as the LED purchased by him initially was out of stock despite still being under warranty terms. However despite the complainant having agreed as per terms given by the OPs, OP No.5 took 14 days to send the comparative price difference despite every information available with them. The details were then sent on the Complainant's Whatsapp number only on 16h September 2020 vide this comparative sheet quote (EX C-2) the complainant was informed about the price difference of Rs 3990/- for the new model i.e. L43U2AOKA 108 cm (43 inches) Smart Ultra HD 4K LED TV (BLACK). The complainant then subsequently made the payment with respect to this difference through RTGS, however again the Opposite Parties went silent after the receipt of the payment leaving the complainant high and dry. After much persuasion and follow up again this job was assigned by the Opposite parties to their field staff technician namely Shubh Kumar, who came to the complainant's house on 10/09/2020 and clicked pictures of the product and informed the complainant that the process of replacement has been initiated. The complainant also corresponded through emails, but the OPs maintained an unprofessional and indifferent attitude. Since the product was purchased with hard earned money and every penny spent means to the complainant, however again without resolving the issue the complaint of the complainant was closed at the OPs end. It is pertinent to mention here that a total of five complaints were made by the complainant in this regard and registered by the OPs, but all the complaints were closed/cancelled by the OPs without any rhyme or reason, the problem/issue of the complainant being unresolved. Since the Complainant has spent money on the purchase of the said LED and has since been left with no television/LED, due to the 21 deficiency in service on part of the OPs, he continued to keep in touch with the OPs by constant follow up, despite all the harassment made innumerable phone calls as the OP No.3 would not take phone calls in one go leaving no choice with the complainant but to keep calling the OPs again and again on their toll free number. After a long ordeal finally OP No.5 came to the complainant's house with one box carrying a LED TV along with 2 other technician including Mr. Shubh Kumar on 02/10/2020 after 7 pm. But to the utter shock and dismay of the Complainant, despite payment for a higher priced LED, the difference in the amounts being already paid and received by the OPs, they attempted to mislead and missell the complainant by delivering a rather lower and cheaper model i.e. Android LED TV 1.08m, price as available online is Ex C-5, Job sheet which was generated after replacement is Ex C-6 which specifically makes mention about the model of LED that was replaced, the online price for this model i.e. Android LED TV 1.08m (43FS301B) is Ex C-5 and also took away the 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No.L 43F2JONS. The complainant however on checking this fact called up the OP No.5 and refused to settle with this lower model of OPs as settlement for the lapses on the part of the OPs as he had already made payment for a higher model i.e. L43U2AOKA 108 cm (43 inches) Smart Ultra HD 4K LED TV (BLACK) which was rather priced at Rs.3990/- over and above the price complainant paid for his initial model. On complainant reluctance to settle with a lower model as he had made payment for a higher model the OP No.5 took the Android LED TV 1.08m (43FS301B) back. Since the OP No.5 had taken back the new Android LED TV 1.08m (43FS301B) and also the 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No. L 43F2JONS, it was again after much follow-up that the defective 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No. L 43F2JONS was returned back to the complainant despite having failed to deliver the new L43U2AOKA 108 cm (43 inches) Smart Ultra HD 4K LED TV (BLACK) even after payment difference already having been made. Since the OPs failed to provide the services to the complainant, forced by the circumstances the complainant bought a new LED of LG make for an amount of Rs. 52000/-. Till date the complaint of the complainant remains unresolved and the opposite parties have unprofessionally and deceptively cheated the complainant, have not delivered the new LED of higher model for which the price difference was duly paid by the complainant and the non functional LED are lying with the complainant. Despite protracted correspondences and follow up by the complainant the complaint was again and again cancelled despite being unresolved. It is pertinent to mention here that even despite total indifferent behavior and written complaints against the field staff/technician the complaint of the complainant was always assigned to Shubh Kumar for reasons best known to OPs. The Complainant got sent a legal notice through his counsel dated 09/11/2010, to which the OPs in order to try to wriggle out of legal consequences sent a reply dated 26/11/2020. The OPs are liable for unfair trade practice and deceptive trade practice due to non-resolving the complaint of the complainant 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 refund the amount of Rs 33,000/- price for the initial LED TV i.e. 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No. L 43F2JONS along with price difference Rs 3990/- paid for L43U2AOKA 108 cm (43 inches) Smart Ultra HD 4K LED TV (BLACK) upper version along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment. Further, OPs be directed to refund the amount to the complainant for the purchase of new LG LED i.e. Rs.52,000/- because of the callous and indifferent attitude on the part of the OPs. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.1 and 5 failed to appear and ultimately OPs No.1 and 5 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.2 to 4 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed due to mis-joinder of parties. OP No.5 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the complaint as he is an employee of answering OP company and cannot be made personally liable for discharge of his employment duties. Therefore, the name of OP No.5 is liable to be dismissed from the array of the parties. It is further averred that answering OPs at the outset seek to raise the following preliminary objections to the very maintainability of the Complaint, which are without prejudice to one another. It is further averred that no cause of action against OPs No. 2 to 4 and as such the complaint is not maintainable against OPs No. 2 to 4 and it deserves to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court from time and again held that when the complaint fails to disclose any cause of action against the defendant/OP, the said complaint is liable to be rejected at the outset without going into the merits of the complaint. The present complaint filed by the complainant is illegal and is not maintainable and is just an attempt to harass and torture to put a stain on the goodwill of the OP. It is further averred that under the CP Act 2019, the liability of product manufacturer arises in case of any (a) Manufacturing defect in the product or (b) Defective design of the product(c) There is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; (d) The product does not conform to the express warranty; (e) The product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage or (f) Service provided is faulty, inadequate and deficient. No such thing has been proved in the present case by the complainant. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase a Lloyd 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No.L 43F2JONS, having serial no.BOHGG20P02002 for a sum of Rs.33,000/- from 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, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs No.2 to 4 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OPs No.2 to 4 very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Lloyd 43" LED Smart Android TV, having Model No.L 43F2JONS from the OP No.1 on 09.02.2019. Ex.C-1 is the bill showing that Rs.33,000/- were paid for the LED TV. There was a warranty of two years. It has been alleged that from the month of July, 2020, the complainant started facing problem in the LED. Despite the emails and contact with the OP, his grievance was not resolved. It has been alleged that when the complainant made number of requests, the OPs agreed to change the model of the LED as the model given to the complainant earlier was not available. The balance amount was deposited by the complainant as per Ex.C-3. The amount demanded by the OP was Rs.3990/-. The allegations of the complainant is that the LED supplied by the OP was of inferior quality to the earlier LED supplied by the OP to the complainant despite taking more money from the complainant. It has been alleged that the more price was demanded and inferior quality product was supplied.

7.                The emails Ex.C-4 consisting of 1-3 pages, clearly show that he has been making number of emails and was trying to contact the OP. The complainant has proved Ex.C-5, the dimensions and detail of Android LED TV Model No.43FS301B. As per Ex.C-6/Job Sheet, the LED of model earlier given to the complainant was replaced with the model 43FS301B, which also did not work. He has further alleged that when the complainant checked the model online, he found the model supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality and the complainant refused to settle with the lower model of the LED. Perusal of Ex.C-5 clearly shows that online, the amount offered of this LED Model is Rs.34,490/-. This fact has been admitted by the OP in reply to the legal notice that they had offered the complainant another upgraded model LED No. 43FS301B year 2020 model against the LED model which was inferred to the complainant. The complainant has produced on record the documents showing the specifications of the model of Lloyd 43” LED full HD TV. Earlier as per the pleadings, the complainant purchased LED TV of the Model L 43F2JONS. It was having resolution (pixels) of 1920x1080. As per their commitment and as per online, the superior model was having the number L43U2A0KA, which has been clearly mentioned in the written reply to legal notice Ex.C-9 in para No.3. This model was superior model as per the specification produced by the complainant having the resolution (pixels) 4k, 3840 x 2160 Pixels, but instead of supplying this model, they had supplied the LED Model 43FSO301V having 1920 x 1080 pixel. The model supposed to be delivered was of Rs.40,499/- and this amount of Rs.33,000/- + Rs.3990/- was taken by the OP from the complainant. No document has been produced on record to support their contention by the OP. Thus, the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OP in not providing the agreed LED Model despite having the more price and not replacing the model offered by the OPs to the complainant as per their admission in Ex.C-9. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the price of the LED TV Rs.33,000/- and Rs.3990/-, total comes Rs.36,990/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 09.02.2019 till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. 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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

01.03.2024         Member                    Member               President