BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.97 of 2018

Date of Instt. 12.03.2018

Date of Decision: 04.12.2018

Rajat Chopra and Rohit Chopra S/o Sh. Pawan Chopra R/o H.No.NB 266 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar-144001, Punjab age 29 years & 32 years.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Haier Corporate Office, Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative, Building No.1, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020.

2. Toms Care Services, Through its Managing Director, Director/General/Manager/Manager/Representative, 103/2 Dilbagh Nagar extension, Grover Colony near 120 ft Road, Jalandhar.

3. Jumbor Distributor L/1 to 6, Sagar Complex, Opp. HP Petrol Pump, City Owali, Bhiwandi, Maharastra 421302.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

None for the OP No.1.

OPs No.2 and 3 Exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased a Haier LED by ordering online on 22.05.2014 and the same was delivered to the complainant, vide Invoice No.88341/14/15/1407 dated 22.05.2014 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 31.05.2014 by OP No.3. The complainant submitted on toll free number and gave a request for the installation of the product on 31.05.2014. The executive of the OP explained the feature of the product as well as warranty detail of the product of 4 years. Rohit Chopra is the consumer of the product and Rajat Chopra is doing correspondence for the product on behalf of the Rohit Chopra. The job sheets are in the name of Rajat Chopra, so both Rohit Chopra and Rajat Chopra are impleaded as consumer. On 02.04.2017, the complainant was facing problem with the panel of the LED and accordingly, a complaint bearing No.CG20170403100399 was got registered with the executive of the OP, who gave assurance to the complainant that the matter will be resolved within 24 working hours, but none has visited the house of the complainant for rectifying the problem of the panel of the LED, then complainant raised a query on 03.04.2017 on the website of the OP, but no action was taken and then the complainant again sent a reminder to the OP No.1 bearing No.170420-000180 dated 20.04.2017, but again no action was taken on that complaint. Thereafter, on 01.08.2017, complainant followed up the complaint and he was shocked to know that his previous complaint was closed by the OP by giving a wrong/fake reason. Thereafter, a new number was provided by the OP on 01.08.2017 i.e. CG 20170901101515. After so many reminders and requests, executive of the OP sent the service engineer to the house of the complainant, who checked the LED and submitted that there is problem with the panel of the LED, which will be rectified after the replacement of the panel of the LED and further stated that your product is under warranty, so you need to pay only service charges for the replacement of the panel to whom he will call as a labour, but the complainant said that the product is under warranty and now services charges should be charged from the complainant, but the representative of the OP No.1 and 2 said that the company will not replace the panel as we need to send the payment receipt along with other documents to the company after getting the approval panel of LED will be replaced. On this, the complainant paid the labour charges to the representative of the OP No.1 and 2 under protest and signed the job sheet under protest and gave the warranty card and the invoice to the service engineer of the OP No.1 and 2. On 14.08.2017, the complainant received a call from the executive of the OP No.1 and 2, who showed his inability to rectify the problem of the LED, which was purchased by the complainant and OP failed to replace the product of the complainant with the same model. The OPs knowingly and vexatiously harassed the complainant. The OPs have supplied faulty LED to the complainant knowing fully well that the LED having inherent manufacturing defects and as such, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the price of the LED i.e. Rs.20,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase and labour charges of Rs.800/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental tension and agony and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 and 3 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.

3. OP No.1 served and appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the allegations contained in the complaint are denied being wrong and further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the law and facts of this case as against the OPs and further averred that the present complaint is against the law as well as facts and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed and even the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the product in question, but it is denied there is any manufacturing defect in the product and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainants Rajat Chopra and Rohit Chopra tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the argument of learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In the instant complaint, the OP No.2 and 3 did not come present to contest the complaint, whereas the OP No.1 only contested the complaint and admitted that the LED was purchased by the complainant on 22.05.2014, even the photostat copy of the Invoice of the same is available on the file Ex.C-9. Now question remains whether there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the LED as alleged by the complainant in Para No.9 of the complaint, in order to establish that there is an inherent manufacturing defect with the LED purchased from the OP, for that purpose, there is no expert witness examined by the complainant nor any report of the mechanic has been produced on the file. A contradictory plea has been also taken by the complainant in other paras of the complaint, wherein stated that on 02.04.2017, the complainant was facing problem with the panel of the LED. So, problem in the panel or inherent manufacturing defect are different one and even the warranty period of both the problem are different because as per own evidence of the complainant i.e. Live Chat with Representative Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 itself established that one year entire product warranty and three years extended warranty on panel only. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the product on 22.05.2014 and defect occurred in the said product first time on 02.04.2017 as alleged in Para No.2 of complaint. So, it means the entire warranty of the product has been already expired and warranty of the panel of the LED was still in existence at the time of occurring a problem first time on 02.04.2017, so in view of the warranty period of the panel of the LED, the complainant is entitled to get replace the said panel of the LED and if there is any other defect in the LED, the same is required to be rectified, but subject to payment of charges.

8. It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant is running after the OP for getting rectify the defect in the panel from the OP since April, 2017, but the same has not been rectified by the OP, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, complainant is entitled to get rectify the defect in the panel of the LED free of cost even the same if required replacement, the same will again be free of cost.

9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to replace the panel of the LED free of cost and if there is any defect in the LED, the same be also rectified, but subject to payment and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

04.12.2018 Member President