DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 707/2017
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANIL KUMAR YADAV,
S/o SH. VIJAY SINGH YADAV,
R/o WZ-308, SHAKURPUR VILLAGE,
DELHI-110034. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1.VIJAY SALES,
HD-2, BLOCK HD,
PITAM PURA RESIDENTIAL SCHEME,
DELHI-110034.
2. TOSHIBA INDIA PVT. LTD.,
3rd FLOOR, BUILDING No. 10 B,
DLF CYBER CITY, GURUGRAM-122002. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.08.2017
Date of decision:23.10.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 02.08.2014, the complainant went to the shop of OP-1 for purchasing a new LED TV and accordingly OP-1 suggested to the complainant for purchasing the LED TV of Toshiba by disclosing
CC No. 707/2017 Page 1 of 8
some new advance features and the complainant believing upon the words of OP-1, agreed to purchase Toshiba LED TV model 29P2305 for a sum of Rs.18,500/- vide invoice no. 71-DPR08-14SDN31 dated 02.08.2014 with 3 years warrantee. On 20.05.2017, the said LED TV screen is blank and the complainant booked a complaint with OP-2 on 25.05.2017 vide complaint no. SR5I0017004. Thereafter, one engineer came at the premises of the complainant and checked the said LED TV and stated that the Panel is faulty and will be replaced within 5 days. On 30.05.2017, the complainant again made a call to OP-2 and the official of OP-2 said that your parts (Panel) will be delivered within 10 days. On 10.06.2017, the complainant again approached to OP-2 but the official of OP-2 gave a fake and false assurance. On 15.06.2017, the complainant again called to OP-2 and again the official of OP-2 gave another executive name and number i.e. on 10.06.2017 Ms. Bandana (9654203273), on 15.06.2017 Mr. ShyamKanojia (9818040744) & on 18.07.2017 Mr. Akshay Chanchal (9873023729) and in between the complainant also sent an e-mail dated 10.07.2017 to OP-2. After 5 days, the complainant again called to OP-2 as well as executive of OP-2 for replacement of Panel but the official of OP-2 said that the panel is not available right now and it will be replaced within 15 days. The complainant further alleged that the warrantee of the said LED TV expired on 01.08.2017 and the official of OP-2 kept on avoiding the matter on one pretext or the other and only waited for
CC No. 707/2017 Page 2 of 8
expiry of the warrantee of the said LED TV. Thereafter, the complainant many times approached OP-2 telephonically and requested to rectify the problem of his LED TV but all the requests of the complainant were fallen in deaf ears. The complainant further alleged that OPs did not repair the said LED TV of the complainant and the defect of the said LED TV was neither removed nor the same was exchanged nor refunded the amount of the said LED TV and the LED TV was still lying faulty with the complainant and the complainant further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the invoice amount of the LED TV i.e. Rs.18,500/- alongwith interest from the date of purchasing the LED TV as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and has also sought Rs.1,100/- towards cost of litigation.
3. Earlier, OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed reply/written statement and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant purchased a Toshiba manufactured LED TV bearing model no.29P2305 of 29” inches bearing serial no. E21X13H01096C1 from OP-1 i.e. Vijay Sales vide invoice no. 71- DPR08-14SDN31 dated 02.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.18,500/-
CC No. 707/2017 Page 3 of 8
inclusive of VAT amount. OP-2 further submitted that the above mentioned LED TV as purchased by the complainant came with a 3 years warrantee scheme and the benefit of the warrantee period 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 and the warrantee card of the above mentioned LED TV provided 3 years warrantee to its prospective customers and also provided a set of terms & conditions which were to be duly followed and complied with by the parties. OP-2 further submitted that amongst many other terms & conditions clause 18 & 19 specifically provided that “18-The depreciating rules of the company prevailing at that point of time will be applicable in case of spares not available during the warrantee or post warrantee period, due to any unforeseen circumstances, beyond the control of the company.” “19-While the company would take adequate steps for availability of spares at all the times, however in stray cases (as decided by the company/ authorized service personnel) of non-availability of spares, company would offer commercial solution to the purchaser as per the depreciation rules of the company prevailing at that point of time.” OP-2 further submitted that above mentioned clauses specifically provided that during warrantee period if any spare part of the particular product was not available then under those circumstances the depreciating rules of the company would be applicable and it also provided that in a
CC No. 707/2017 Page 4 of 8
condition a particular spare part is not available then OP-2 shall offer a commercial solution to the customers whereby the value of the LED TV would be refunded back to the customer after deducting the depreciating value which is deduction @ 10% per annum as per prevailing company policy. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant after using the LED TV for 2 years and 10 months approx., called the customer care of OP-2 for the 1st time on 25.05.2017as he was facing problem qua the display of the LED TV, subsequently a unique complaint no.TIPLSR5I0017004 was generated by the call centre of OP-2 and upon receipt of said complaint from the complainant, an engineer from authorized service centre of OP-2 visited the premises of the complainant in order to rectify the said defect and informed the complainant that the display panel of the LED TV was required to be replaced in order to make the LED TV functional, however, as the said display panel was not available with OP-2 and the same was required to be imported from outside India, thus the request for the same was placed before the procurement team of OP-2 and the complainant was informed that once the said panel will be available, the same will be replaced by the service team of OP-2 which will make the LED TV functional. However, as the said display panel of the said LED TV was not available with OP-2 and OP-2 being known for its commitments towards its prospective customers and as per the terms & conditions of the warrantee scheme, offered a ‘refund
CC No. 707/2017 Page 5 of 8
proposal’ amounting to Rs.13,413/- qua the LED TV to the complainant after making necessary depreciations i.e. period for which it was used by the complainant and after deduction of VAT amount. OP-2 further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Whereas notice was issued to OP-1 through speed post for appearanceon 27.11.2017 and Sh. Raj Nath Yadav, Customer Service Incharge on behalf of OP-1 appeared and sought time to file written statement and case was adjourned to 10.01.2018 for filing of written statement/reply. On 10.01.2018, Counsel for OP-1 appeared and further sought time to file written statement and one last & final opportunity was provided to file written statement subject to cost of Rs.500/- and the case was adjourned on 28.03.2018. But none for OP-1 appeared on 28.03.2018, 30.07.2018 & 14.11.2018.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement/reply of OP-2 and denied the contentions of OP-2.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of Delivery Note V. No. 71-DPR08-14SDN-31 dated 02.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.18,500/- issued by OP-1, copy of warrantee card issued by OP-2 and copy of mail dated 30.05.2017.
CC No. 707/2017 Page 6 of 8
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP-2, Sh. Nilesh Sharma, Senior Manager-Legal of OP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP-2 in the written statement. OP-2 has also filed copy of certified true copy of resolution dated 25.01.2016, copy of terms & conditions of company and copy of snapshots of the complaint Sr. No.TIPLSR5I0017004 taken out from the data base of OP-2.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-2 in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the parties.The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The complainant has made so many complaints on telephone and requested to OP-2 to repair defective LED TV but OP-2 failed to rectify the defect/problem in the LED TV nor refunded the amount of the same which proves deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his LED TV toOP-2 as well as at the call centre i.e. customer care centre of OP-2 within warranty period and strangely the defect could not be sorted out. It was the duty of the OP-2 to rectify thedefect once for all or to replace the product or to refund the depreciated value of the product. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defect in the product. Accordingly, we hold OP-2 as guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is on record that the
CC No. 707/2017 Page 7 of 8
complainant has used the said LED TV 2 years and 10 months.
9. Accordingly, OP-2 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.13,000/- being the depreciated cost of the LED TV on return of the old LED TV & original bill to OP-2.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 23rdday of October, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 707/2017 Page 8 of 8
