Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/180/2022

ADITYA GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 180/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri  Aditya Garg S/o Lt. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta R/o 14/38, Shakti Nagar, 3rd Floor, Nangia Park, New Delhi-110007	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Vijay Sales( Delhi Model Town III) H-2, Gr. Flr. Next to ICICI Bank Model Town III, Delhi-110009   Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd. Building No. 10, Tower B, Phase-II, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

05.02.18 02.11.22 13.07.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 19.06.15 Complainant purchased led tv of Rs. 41,000/- having invoice no. 305 DMT06 15DNFWP176  from Opposite Party No.1 with three years warranty. The Complainant stated that in month of February 2017 the said LED screen was blank. The Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2 vide complaint no. SR2I0024230 on 22.02.17. The Complainant stated that engineer visited house of Complainant and checked the said LED and told that mother board was faulty and they will replace it within one week. The Complainant stated that after one week the Complainant again called Opposite Party No.2 and official of Opposite Party No.2 told that they will send the parts within 10 days. After 10 days, Complainant called Opposite Party No.2 for replacement of motherboard but official of Opposite Party No.2 told Complainant that motherboard was not available and will be replaced within 15 days. The Complainant stated that engineer visited house of Complainant after one month with motherboard and told Complainant that panel of said tv was faulty and will be replaced within 15 days. After 15 days Complainant called Opposite Party No.2 for panel but official of Opposite Party No.2 told that panel was not available with them. After 10 days Complainant again called Opposite Party No.2 for panel but they told that panel is not available and will be replaced within 15 days. The Complainant stated that the warranty of said tv expired on 18.06.18 and Opposite Party No. 2 was avoiding the matter on one pretext or another and only waited for expiry of warranty of tv in question. The Complainant called Opposite Party many times to rectify the problem in LED but all in vain. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party has not repaired the tv in question nor exchanged the tv or refunded the amount to Complainant. Complainant has prayed for the cost of the tv in question with interest from the date of purchase. He further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 1,100/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 is a dealer, if the complaint is received from the consumer then every dealer informed the manufacturing company and service centre and he has right to check and removed the defect. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No. 1 sent the complaint to the service centre which was received from the Complainant. It is further submitted that every time the Complainant pressurise to replace the tv. Opposite Party No. 1 also told the Complainant that your guarantee has already been expired.
3. Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed that the complaint filed by the Complainant is false and frivolous and the same be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

4. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that Complainant purchased a Toshiba Manufactured LED tv bearing model no. 40L5400ZE and serial no. E433D6J00310V1 from the Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice no. 305 DMT06 15DNPWP 176  dated 19.06.15 for an amount of Rs. 41,000/-.
5. It is stated that the tv purchased by the Complainant came with 1 year warranty scheme. It is not out of the place to mention here that the benefit of the warranty period that started from the date of purchase of the LED tv covered free repair of any part or parts of the products, if the defect was due to the faulty material or workmanship.
6. It is further submitted that to avail the benefit of the warranty extension pack of 2 years, a customer needs to purchase a warranty extension pack separately, and after scratching-off the secret unique code printed on inner page of warranty extension pack, customer needs to register the warranty extension by sending the code via SMS to the Opposite Party No.2 within 15 days of purchase of tv. Upon receipt and validation of code, Opposite Party No.2 updates and grants the warranty extension for customer’s tv, and customer also gets confirmation SMS for warranty extension on his registered mobile number. However, in the present complaint, Complainant has also not shared (a) the inner page of the warranty extension pack having the unique secret code (b) any SMS confirmation received with respect to extension of warranty from 1 year to 3 years or (c) separate invoice copy confirming the purchase of warranty extension pack.
7. That the Complainant after the expiry of the one year and eight months approximately i.e. after the expiry of one year warranty period, contacted the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 qua display issue in the said Led tv. Upon the said behest of the Complainant, a complaint bearing SR No. TIPLSR2I0024230 was generated and was sent to the registered number of the Complainant. Subsequently, service team of the Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the Complainant and informed him that display panel of the LED tv was defective. Since, the said LED tv was out of warranty as the same was not registered for the two year warranty extension pack, thus the said complaint was rejected being “out of warranty”.
8. Subsequent to the cancellation of the said complaint, Complainant was apprised of the fact that since the said LED tv was out of warranty, the LED tv could be repaired on chargeable basis only, which was refused by the Complainant, therefore, the complaint bearing SR No. TIPLSR2I0024230 was cancelled by the Opposite Party No. 2.
9. It is further submitted that Complainant in the present complaint has not annexed any documentary evidence regarding extension of warranty, thus, the Complainant be made to liable to strict proof with respect to same.
10. It is denied that the official of Opposite Party No.2 kept on avoiding the matter on account of one pretext or other to grab the time as the extended warranty of the LED tv was expiring on 18.06.18. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 rightly rejected one and only complaint bearing no. TIPLSR2I0024230 as the same was out of 3 years warranty scheme.
11. It is further denied by Opposite Party No.2 that all the requests of the Complainant were fallen in deaf ears. It is reiterated that Complainant was duly informed of the fact the said LED tv was out of warranty and repairs could be provided on chargeable basis. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 in no way was responsible for the mechanical defects that would have been caused in the said Led tv beyond the period of one year of warranty period.
12. Further, the Opposite Party No. 2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Party No.1 and 2

13. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

14. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

15. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Sonu Kumar Singh, AR of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Shri Nilesh Sharma, Senior Manager Legal of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

16. We have heard the mother of Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.
17. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased LED tv on 19.05.15 from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 with 3 years warranty. It is further submitted that the said tv was stopped working in the month of February 2017 and the Complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party No.2 on 22.02.17 in spite of several call to the Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.2 failed to remove the defects in the said tv on one pretext or another and only waited for the expiry of the warranty of the tv in question which expired on 18.06.18. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.  
18. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that it is a dealer and if complaint regarding malfunctioning of the product is received from the consumer it informed the manufacturing company and service centre which has right to check and removed the defect. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No. 1 sent the complaint to the service centre which was received from the Complainant. Hence, there is not a deficiency on the behalf of Opposite Party No. 1.
19. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that it is admitted that Complainant purchased a tv on 19.06.15 with one year warranty and benefit of warranty period started from the date of purchase of LED tv covered free repair of any part or parts of the products, if the defect was due to the faulty material or workmanship. In the present case, Complainant did not purchase a warranty extension pack separately. Hence, warranty of the said tv was only for one year with expiry on 15.06.16. The Complainant registered a complaint regarding non functioning of tv in February 2017 i.e. after the expiry of warranty period and complaint of the Complainant was registered on the basis of “out of warranty”. Subsequent to the cancellation of the said complaint, Complainant was apprised of the fact that since the said tv was out of warranty the said tv could be repaired on chargeable basis only which was refused by the Complainant. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 that Complainant has not annexed any documentary evidence regarding extension of warranty thus, the Complainant be made to liable to strict proof with respect to same.
20. In the present case, the Opposite Party No.2 denied to repair the tv on the basis of said tv was covered under warranty only for one year.  The SR No TIPLSR2I0024230 submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 is not mentioned about the expiry of warranty it shows only warranty type is goodwill. Further various emails exchanged between Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 did not mentioned about expiry of warranty or Complainant was advised to pay for repair of the said tv. They are simply assuring the Complainant is that they are looking into the matter and problem will be resolved soon. Hence, it shows there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party     No. 2.
21. In view of the above discussion the complaint is allowed. The Complainant has purchased the tv for a sum of Rs. 41,000/- and the Complainant has used the said tv for more than one year. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.2 shall pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
22. Order announced on 13.07.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

( Anil Kumar Bamba)             Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President