Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/353/2020

Ajay Chhikara - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gopal Sharma, Dhruv Singh & Anil Ghanghas

28 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/353/2020
Date of Institution	:	08/09/2020
Date of Decision	:	28/07/2021

 

 

Ajay Chhikara son of Shri Amir Singh, resident of Flat No.503, Shakti Apartments, Sector-14, Panchkula-134113.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Videocon Industries Limited, 14 Km Stone, Paithan Road, Chitegaon, District Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431105 through its Managing Director.
2. Videocon Industries Limited, Plot No.72, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh 160002 through its Branch Manager.
3. Pinky Electronics, SCO 1113, Sector 22B, Chandigarh 160022 through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      Allegations in brief are, after reading the advertisement dated 20.10.2015 published by the OPs, offering five year free comprehensive warranty on LED TV worth ₹38,000/-, the complainant contacted the customer care of the OPs.  The complainant was told that he would get comprehensive warranty of 1+4 years on LED TV which comes to ₹9,500/- per year out of which one year warranty was included in the price of LED TV.  On 8.11.2015, the complainant purchased a VIDEOCON 55 inch (139 cm) 4k Ultra HD LED Smart Android TV and paid ₹77,000/- as per offer.  In the month of September 2018, the remote control of LED TV started giving trouble as it became unresponsive.  The complainant immediately contacted OP-4 but he was told to contact customer care number of OP-1.  However, all the customer care numbers and websites of OP-1 were shut down.  Subsequently, in the month of January 2020, the complainant came to know about starting of customer care services of OPs and on 20.1.2020 he got registered a complaint regarding his dead LED TV. However, the complainant was informed that he had to pay ₹983/- as labour/service/visiting charges and despite protest by the complainant that the LED was still under 5 year warranty, he had to pay the same.  On 23.1.2020, technician of OP-1 inspected the LED and informed that power supply and motherboard were defective and told that the defective parts would be replaced free of cost, being under warranty which was to expire on 8.11.2020. However, vide job card dated 20.1.2020 the LED was showed out of warranty. When the complainant contacted OP-1 regarding the discrepancy, he was assured that the LED would be treated as in warranty, but, nothing was done thereafter. The complainant even got served a legal notice dated 24.7.2020 and in response he was asked to pay ₹30,000/- as per policy of OPs as no replacement parts were available.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainants has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     Registered notice was sent to OP-1 which was refused by it.  Since refusal is valid service and none appeared on its behalf, therefore, vide order dated 9.3.2021, OP-1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Registered notices were sent to OPs 2 & 3 which were presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OPs 2 & 3, therefore, vide order dated 15.12.2020 of this Commission, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
4.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
5.     We have gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present case is that despite having five years comprehensive warranty on the LED TV in question, OPs did not repair the same free of cost when the same got defective within a period of around three years only. Rather on 20.1.2020 the complainant was told that he had to pay ₹983/- as labour/ service/visiting charges despite the LED having the coverage of five years.
7.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased the LED in question on 8.11.2015 after paying hefty amount of ₹77,000/- to OP-3 and the defect in the aforesaid LED appeared in September, 2018 as the remote control of the LED in question started giving problem and thereafter it became unresponsive and went dead. Subsequently, on 20.1.2020 the complainant registered a complaint regarding his dead LED TV and he was informed that he had to pay requisite charges, though the same was within warranty of five years and he had paid for the same.
8.     A perusal of the file reveals that the LED in question was purchased vide retail invoice dated 8.11.2015 (Annexure C-1).  As per Videocon’s Extended Warranty Information Card (Annexure C-2), the LED was having 1 + 4 extended warranty. However, despite that the complainant was forced to pay ₹983/- for carrying out certain repairs as is evident from Annexure C-4 (Page 21).  Over this job sheet the status of the repair shows that the LED in question is out of warranty.  It is beyond our understanding that when the aforesaid LED was purchased in the year 8.11.2015 and having warranty of five years i.e. till November, 2020 then what was the reason for the OPs to charge amount of ₹983/- from the complainant vide job sheet (Page 21). 
9.     Annexure C-3 is the brochure of OPs only and it clearly shows that the product purchased by the complainant was a high end product and was most expensive one out of all the products sold by OP company.  Over this brochure there is mention that to avail 5 years warranty product was to be bought from the authorized Videocon retailers.  Evidently, the complainant purchased the LED in question from authorized Videocon retailer only.  So, it was the foremost duty of the OPs to provide the five years warranty to the complainant as promised while selling the product. However, the act of the OPs in not providing after sale service as per warranty terms and rather charging ₹983/- towards labour/service; non-repairing the dead LED set, non responding to the legal notice of the complainant and non appearing before this Commission during the proceedings of the present case proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the invoice price of the LED in question i.e. ₹77,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this consumer complaint i.e. 8.9.2020 till realization. The complainant shall, however, return the defective LED in question to the OPs.
2. to refund the amount of ₹983/- to the complainant, as mentioned above, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 23.1.2020 till realization.
3. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
4. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) to  (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iiv) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/07/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member