Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/382/2014

Divya Bharti W/o Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Yamuna Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No… 382  of 2014.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 08.09.2014.

                                                                                               Date of decision: 18.05.2016.

Divya Bharti wd/o late Shri Raj Kumar, resident of House No. 860-A, Gali No. 3, Prem Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Yamuna Electronics near Paper Mill Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Reach Distributors India Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No. 694, Phirni Road, Alipur, Delhi.

 

                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Complainant in person.   

               Sh. A.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Sh. Parveen Sharma, Manager for respondent No.2.

             

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Divya Bharti  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the T.V. of the complainant with new one and OP No.1 may be directed to supply the bill of the T.V. and further to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant wanted to purchase a television (hereinafter referred as T.V.) and visited the shop of OP No.1, who assured the complainant that the T.V. of the BPL Company is very much superior and it will give better service. On the assurance of Op No.1, complainant purchased the T.V. of BPL Company on 21.05.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8400/-. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to make the installments of the abovesaid amount who asked the complainant that she has to pay Rs. 625/- per month. The complainant agreed the same and started to pay monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 625/- per month and paid Rs. 7600/-. After some months, from the date of purchase of T.V., it started giving some problem, on which the complainant contacted the OP No.1 to rectify the defect from the T.V. which was rectified by OP No.1. However, after some time again the same defect had arisen in the T.V. and it stopped working. The complainant again visited the shop of Op No.1 with request to change the defective T.V. but the Op No.1 refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. Even, the complainant requested the Op No.1 to handover the bill of the T.V. in question but firstly Op No.1 kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other but lastly refused to hand over the bill of T.V. in question and due to that complainant could not contact the company directly. The act of the OP No.1 clearly constitutes not only the deficiency in service but it is unfair trade practice on his part. Lastly, prayed that as the T.V. of the complainant was not replaced despite so many requests. Hence, this complaint.

 3.                    Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and on merit it has been further admitted that on the request of the complainant, the OP No.1 agreed to pay the price of T.V. by means of installments of Rs. 625/- per month. It has been further stated that only Rs. 5100/- has been paid by the complainant instead of Rs. 7600/- as alleged in her complaint. The complainant paid last installment of Rs. 700/- on 05.12.2012. It has been further stated that when Op No.1 asked to the complainant for balance amount outstanding against her then she filed the present complaint before this Forum. Only one time the complainant contacted the OP No.1 to get the defect rectified of the T.V. by the service centre of the company and thereafter she never contacted the OP No.1 and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

4.                     OP No.2 also filed its written statement admitting therein that a T.V. of BPL Company has been purchased by complainant Divya Bharti but before purchasing she watched and inspect the alleged product about 2 hours and after full satisfaction, she purchased a brand new T.V. which was in completely seal packed. According to the Companies Rules and Regulations, company gives one year warranty on its products, but no such complaint was registered by the complainant with the Op No.2 or its customer care centre before 20.05.2014. As the complainant always neglected to pay the installments to OP No.1, so, she has never been given bills or purchase slip. It has been further mentioned that OP No.2 Company takes full care of its customers after registering the complaints but in the present case complainant never registered any complaint during the warranty period. It has been further mentioned in the written statement that OPs wanted to repair her product as new one, but found that the complainant already showed and repaired the product by a local repairman who has no any qualification of repairing of engineering and this is a completely illegal according to their company norms. The complainant used to reach the company office at Rohtak and made a noise and abused all the staff regularly and in that situation their all staffs faced mental agony due to rash behavior of the complainant. In view of the facts, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

5.                     To prove her case, complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as copy of detail of installments made on plain paper as Annexure C-1, Certified copy of order dated 19.08.2014 for withdrawal of the complaint as Annexure C-2 and closed her evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence Photo copy of bill dated 10.04.2012 as Annexure R-1, Statement of account as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1 whereas OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Parveen Kumar Sharma as Annexure RW2/X and document Annexure R-II/AB.

 7.                    We have heard the both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased a T.V. Make BPL, ULG 37 KS bearing serial No. 1007030103492 from OP No.1 on 10.04.2012 not on 21.05.2013 which is evident from the copy of bill bearing No. 24 dated 10.04.2012 (Annexure R-1).

9.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that T.V. in question purchased from OPNo.1 started giving some problem from the very beginning and due to this the complainant visited the OP No.1 who repaired it only for one time but later on refused to remove the defect from the T.V. This plea of the complainant is not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to file any mechanic/expert report to prove that the T.V. in question was having any manufacturing defect or was remained dead or out of working order during the currency of warranty period and in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Forum is unable to hold that T.V. in question was having any manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with new one. Although the complainant has not filed any expert or mechanic report to prove that T.V. in question was having any manufacturing defect but from the pleading of the parties specifically contents of para No.4 of the written statement filed by Op No.1, it is admitted case of the OPs that complainant contacted the Op No.1, once to get the defect rectified of the T.V. by the Service Centre of the Company. Meaning thereby that the T.V. of the complainant was out of order due to some reasons which was rectified.   

10.                   Further, the Op No.2 has also admitted in his written statement that the OPs wants to repair the T.V. in question as new one, but found that, the complainant already showed and repaired the product( T.V.) by a local repair man. Meaning thereby that complainant was forced to get the repair work of her T.V.in question from the local market and no proper service has been provided by the service centre of the OP No.2 or the OP No.1.  Even, the Op No.2 has also admitted in his written statement that as the complainant was not paid installments and always remains neglected to pay the installments to Op No.1, so, the bills or purchase slip has not been delivered to the complainant which proves the version of the complainant that she could not contact to OP No.2 company directly and could not file the complaint in time. From the perusal of account statement filed by OP No.1 (Annexure R-2) it is evident that complainant made part payment of Rs. 2500/- or Rs. 3500/- to the OP No.1 and remaining amount was financed so there was no question arises to withheld the purchase bill/slip. The shop keepers are bound to issue the purchase bill as well as warranty card, if any, to its customer immediately on the purchase of product either purchased on cash or credit and if any shop keeper did not issue the bills then it amounts to be deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Even during the course of argument Parveen Kumar Sharma, Service Manager of OpNo.2 draw our attention towards Job Sheet Annexure R-II/AB vide which the T.V. of the complainant was repaired and two parts were replaced on 04.04.2016 and argued that now the T.V. in question is in working order but at the same time it proves that TV in question was lying dead with complainant since long time which was repaired by the OPs on 4.4.2016.   

11.                   Further the OPNo.1 even did not bother to file accurate account statement of the complainant in which how much installments were deposited by the complainant with the OPs and further the OP No.1 has also not filed any agreement executed between the complainant and OP No.1 through which the T.V. in question was financed and in the absence of any agreement it cannot be said that the OP No.1 was entitled to get any interest on the payment of installments or not. From the perusal of account statement prepared on plain paper by Op No.1 (Annexure R-2), it is evident that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 7600/-. Meaning thereby that complainant paid almost the entire loan amount to OP No.1. So, the plea of the OP No.1 that the present complaint has been filed just to avoid the remaining payment of the installments is not tenable. Even the version of Op No.1 is totally contradictory and not believable that complainant paid only Rs. 5100/- as mentioned in para No.3 on merit of written statement whereas in the account statement Annexure R-2, OP No.1 has admitted that she paid Rs. 7600/-.

12.                   In these circumstances noted above, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of the T.V. in question but it does not mean that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as it is admitted case of the OPs that Op No.1 had not issued the purchase bill/invoice to the complainant alongwith warranty card which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as discussed above and further the T.V. of the complainant was lying dead at the time of vising the service engineer on 04.04.2016 (Annexure R-II/AB). So, we are of the considered view that complainant might have suffered mental agony and harassment in the hands of the OPs and she was forced to file the present complaint to redress her grievances. As the complainant is facing the hardship and mental agony for the last 3-4 years, so, the complainant is entitled to get some relief against OP No.1 only. However, as the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the T.V. in question, so, the complaint qua OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and not issuing the bill/purchase slip and warranty card to the complainant and further to pay Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per rules. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:18.05.2016.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.