Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-53/2020
Rishi Kumar and Abhay Kumar
s/o Late Sh. Ram Ji Lal
r/o 3/475 and 3/399 Khichri Pur,
Delhi-110091 ...Complainant
Versus
OP1: M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.
12th Floor, Videocon Tower
E1 Block, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi-110055
OP2: Sh. Vinay
M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.
12th Floor, Videocon Tower
E1 Block, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi-110055
OP3: Sh. Sudhir
M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.
12th Floor, Videocon Tower
E1 Block, Jhandewalan,
New Delhi-110055
...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 03.09.2020
Order Reserved on: 06.12.2022
Date of Order: 04 .02.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shahina
ORDER
1. The Present complaint has been filed jointly by Mr. Rishi Kumar and Mr. Abhay Kumar (in short the complainant by No.1 & No.2) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against M/s Videocon Industries Ltd (in Short OP No.1) and its employees Shri Vinay (in short OP no.2) and Shri Sudhir (in short OP No.3).
2. Brief facts of the case are of allegation of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs. Complainant No.2 purchased a Videocon LED TV bearing model No. VMH-32 HH02CKH from a shop M/s Navrang Audio Video Private Limited on 09.10.2016 for sum of Rs.15,500/- in exchange of old LED TV having 05 Years extendable warranty up to 08.10.2021. The Complainants state that on 08.09.2019 said TV suddenly broke down and then Complainant No.2 registered a telephonic complaint to its customer care No.01204500600 from his mobile no. On 10.09.2019 a Videocon LED TV Service Engineer C/o Pearl Electronics visited his home and charged Rs.500/- as a visiting fee. The service Engineer noticed that an important part of TV has been broke down and needs replacement against its defective part. On 28.10.2019 Complainant wrote complaint by e-mail to the OP, but the OP did not take any action to rectify the complaint, but OP sent reply by e-mail that Complaint LED TV part to be dispatched from “Aurangbad Maharastra manufacturing unit”. The complainant was continuously writing mails to the OP No.2 & 3 and they asked to keep patience. It is further, the case of the complainants that the OP3, telephonically told that defective part of the said TV is not being manufactured now, therefore, a new TV will be replaced against old TV from its warehouse located in Ghaziabad and to deposit Rs. 4,400/- only, and it would not be available in Delhi, because Ghaziabad border was sealed at the time of Lockdown. He also asked to the complainant to take HD TV, for that, the complainant has to deposited Rs.2,300/- at Delhi warehouse according to OP3. The complainants have been filed the e-mails and whatapps message is relation to the said TV repair. It has been further alleged that the OPs could not rectify the problems of LED TV till date. The complainants has claimed total claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3. Notice were served to OPs. As nobody appeared on behalf of the OP1, OP2 and OP3, therefore they were proceeded with Ex-parte on 20.05.2022.
4.Complainant No.1 filed his affidavit for both the complainants, while reaffirming the complaint on the basis of documentary record filed with the complaint and facts narrated therein. Complainants have also filed written submission written manually and oral submissions were also made.
Although, the complainants prosecuted the complaint personally and written arguments are also framed in Hindi, considering these aspects, the pleadings and record will be read in the prospective of grievances of the complainant as well as the allegations made against the OPs, in order to strike balance for both sides.
5.1. The record is considered, apart from the contentions of the complainant. First of all, it is a joint complaint by Mr. Rishi Kumar and Mr. Abhay Kumar,however, the retail invoice for buying LED TV by complainant no. 2 Abhay Kumar. As appearing the complainant no. 1 Rishi Kumar had made correspondence on Whatapps or email to OPs on behalf of complainant no. 2. Therefore, the circumstances established that there is a relationship of consumer between complainant no. 2 and service provider OP1. Secondly, OP2 and OP3 are employees or workers of OP1, there is no personal liability can be fastened against OP2 and OP3 as they are just employee of OP1.
5.2. The gist of grievances is that complainant no. 2 bought the LED TV, it was functioning at the initial stage but later on there was break down then its repair was sought from the OPs, when there was intervening period of pandemic Covid-19, the part to be arranged from Aurangabad, Maharasthra, later on it was advised that parts are not being manufactured, then other option of new LED TV was offered, to be replaced from warehouse at Ghaziabad, but because of want of movements because of pandemic the complainant opted it from warehouse at Delhi address but it was also not provided despite deposit of Rs. 2,300/-. There was warranty of period of 5 years and the LED TV broke down within the currency of warranty period and the OP1 failed to provide that part or repairs in that phase of warranty period to make the LED TV functional. There is deficiency in services.
Later complainant was given option to take another TV by deposit of Rs. 2,300/-, when it was exercised by the complainant, the OP1 failed to honour it. It is also deficiency in services.
5.3. The complainant is entitled for appropriate relief since there is deficiency of services on the part of OP1. The complainant has framed the complaint and relief by prayer of consolidated amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, however, there is no concrete evidence for making such consolidated amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- in lieu of LED TV which was bought for Rs. 15,500/-. Since the said LED TV is not functional because of want of availability of part, the said LED TV is no more worth for the complainant no. 2, therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the complaint by awarding him an amount of Rs. 15,500/- in lieu of the price of LED TV which was broke down. No other order in favour of complainant no. 1, against OP2 and OP3 as well as no order to the cost.
6. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant no. 2 Abhay Kumar and against OP1/ Videocon Industries Ltd. , while directing OP1 to pay an amount of Rs. 15,500/-.The OP1 shall pay the amount within 30 days from the receipt of this order. In case the OP1 do not pay the amount within the 30 days from the receipt of order, the OPs will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% pa from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
7: Announced on this 04th day of February, 2023. Copy of this order sent/provided to the parties free of cost as per Regulations.
