Delhi

South West

CC/15/667

S C PAHWA S/O, SH. SAT PAL PAHWA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. SATISH BHATTI DSC MANAGER LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VII

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, SHEIKH SARAI, NEW DELHI-110017

 

Complaint No. DF. VII/667/15                                                                                                                    Dated:

In the matter of:

S. C. Pahwa,

S/o Sh. Sat Pal Pahwa

B-4/246, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi-110029                                                                                          ….Complainant           

 

 

Versus

 

Mr. Satish Bhatti

DSC Manager,

LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd.

Plot No. A/24/6, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road, New Delhi                                                                  ….Opposite Party                                   

 

O R D E R

(HARSHALI KAUR, MEMBER)

 

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased a TV manufactured by the OP paying the consideration of Rs.68,000/- from one Amit Enterprises, Sarojini Nagar market,             New Delhi - 110023 .

 

The complainant states that the said TV was covered under        AMC no. NC000320 dated 12.10.2013. The complainant states that he lodged a complaint for repair and maintenance of his TV on 14.04.2014 against the AMC provided by the OP Company. Further, one Mr. Ramesh technician, visited the complainant residence to check the TV set and found that tube was burnt/unserviceable.

 

The complainant alleges that the technician of the OP assured the complainant that the said tube would be replaced in a week's time. The complainant also received a message dated 14.04.2014 stating "Dear Costumer-your complaint RNA 140414070195 is in progress. (Reasons-parts have been ordered LG (LGRORN/HO Action)"

 

The complainant was allegedly informed by the OP after a week that the spare parts of the complainant’s TV were not available with their office, as the model of TV of the complainant had been discontinued and payment would be made for this TV as the same was covered under AMC. The technician of the OP, one Mr. Ramesh also collected the required documents from the complainant.

 

The complainant sent a mail dated 03.07.2014 to the OP to do the needful at the earliest but he was only offered a sum of Rs. 23,800/- towards the TV for which he had paid Rs.68,000/- to the OP which was not acceptable to the complainant.

 

The complainant then approached the Mediation Centre, Qutab Institutional Area on 15.12.2014 wherein it was agreed that the OP would repair the TV within one week. However, the OP failed to repair the complainant's TV even after passage of 26 days. The complainant received another message dated 21.03.2015 wherein the reasons for the complainant’s complaint not being resolved and still being in process was given as "Parts have been ordered".

 

The complainant filed the present complaint before this forum thereafter, on 08.01.2016 alleging deficiency-in-service under section 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays for replacement of TV tube and repair of TV or equivalent model should be given, full price of the TV i.e. Rs. 68,000/- be paid to the complainant, a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards the rent amount paid by the complainant to hire an alternate TV for the last one year, Rs.50,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony the complainant has suffered and Rs. 10,000/- towards legal charges.

 

Notice was issued to the OP who filed a reply. The OP relied upon the affidavit of Sh. Md. Arif, AR to be read as evidence. Once the pleadings were complete we heard the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the OP.

The OP has taken the preliminary objections of this Forum lacking territorial jurisdiction as the new registered office of the OP is situated at Saket and even the old office was located at Mohan co-operative industrial estate, New Delhi which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-X.

 

The OP have themselves admitted that at the time of institution of this complaint the OP had their registered office at plot A-24/6, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi as is also mentioned in the memo of parties filed by the complainant with this complaint. The Consumer Protection Act is categorical in conferring Jurisdiction in section-11 by clarifying that the Police Station of Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate falls in Sarita Vihar which squarely falls within our Territorial Jurisdiction from where the OP were working for gain at the time of the institution of the instant complaint. Hence, we feel the preliminary objection raised by the OP is not in tune with the law as laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Further, the OP has also taken the objection that the complainant has mentioned that the complainant hired a TV @ Rs.3000/- per month for the last 12 months from Ambi Finance Systems but have not proved the same by making Ambi Finance Systems a necessary party.

 

We find that the complainant only mentioned this fact to claim damages towards the rent paid as proof thereof. It shall be considered in accordance with the overall decision on merits.

Agreeing to the averment made by the complainant, regarding purchase of the TV in question, the OP clarifies that the complainant purchased the same on 09.05.2009 and after using the TV for five years the complaint was lodged undoubtedly on 14.04.2014 regarding defect in the complainant's TV.

 

The complainant’s TV was duly inspected and it was found that the screen could not be repaired or replaced as the OP Company had discontinued manufacturing the complainant's unit. This fact was informed to the complainant as per policy and obligation and the complainant was offered Rs. 23,800/-. But the complainant remained adamant for refund of the complete amount of the unit.

 

The OP further state that AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) is for resolving defects of the unit free of cost and not for complete refund of the price of the unit. The OP in pursuance of the order passed by the Mediation Centre dated 17.03.2015, visited the complainant's house on 21.03.2015 to rectify the defect of the complainant's unit and also offered the amount of Rs. 23,800/- which the complainant rejected remaining adamant on refund of total costs paid by him at time of purchase.

 

We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for OP on date fixed for final argument and have carefully perused all the documents placed on record by the contesting parties.

 

In our considered view, the complainant purchased a television manufactured by the OP paying a sum of Rs. 68,000/- on 09.05.2009. The complainant lodged a complaint with the OP on 14.04.2014 after finding some defect in the TV unit, i.e. after almost five years of use.

 

Since, the complainant's TV unit was under the AMC provided by the OP, a technician; one Mr. Ramesh visited the complainant's residence and on inspection of the complainant's TV unit found the TV to be faulty. The OP technician allegedly assured the complainant that the defective tube of his TV unit shall be repaired within a week.

 

However, the same was not done and the complainant was informed that the spare parts of the complainant’s TV unit were unavailable and therefore the payment of the same would be made, as it was covered under the AMC. He also collected requisite documents for the same from the complainant. The complainant also approached the Delhi government Mediation and Conciliation Centre for redressal of his grievance when no action was taken by the OP to replace or refund the amount of his TV.

 

The complainant on page number 12 of this complaint has placed on record the order passed by the mediation Centre wherein it was held that "The matter has now been settled between the parties voluntarily, amicably and without any Coercion or pressure, on the following terms:-

 

1. It is agreed between the parties that OP shall repair the Television in question under the annual maintenance within one week from the date of the present settlement and will hand over the television to the complainant in proper working condition.
2. That both the parties hereby undertake not to file / initiate any legal proceedings against each other at any platform, forum or court in any manner whatsoever henceforth with regard to the present dispute in view of this settlement.
3. No more dispute left between the parties.
4. Both the parties agree to remain bound on/by this settlement.

 

This fact is not denied by the OP who have admitted the same in the affidavit of Sh. Md. Arif, Authorized Representative for OP. The OP have further stated that since they did not have the requisite parts, as they had discontinued manufacturing the model of the complainant’s TV unit, the OP offered to pay a sum of Rs. 23,000/- under the terms of AMC towards the complainant's TV unit which the complainant adamantly refused for undue financial gain.

 

Even though the OP have stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the complainant towards the complainant's TV unit in accordance of the AMC terms; the OP have not filed the on record any terms and conditions to clarify which term they are referring to or filed any document to show the calculation for deducting the complainant's refund amount, for reasons best known to them.

 

Similarly, on perusal of page number 13 which is the job card dated 19.03.2015 of the complaint we find that there is mention of "standby set-22MA33B-PTP-310PMQG001660" neither the complainant nor the OP have clarified if the complainant received any standby set for the intervening period when the complainant's TV unit was taken for "workshop service".

 

Under the circumstances we are constrained to allow the complaint and find the OP deficient in service for not fulfilling the promise made by them for providing satisfactory service to the complainant at the time of taking the consideration of the AMC, which again neither contesting party has mentioned but OP has admitted in the affidavit filed.

Now we come to the damages that the complainant is due for the harassment faced by him. The complainant had taken an AMC which the OP does not refute hence his TV should have undoubtedly been repaired free of cost but since the OP does not manufacture the complainant’s TV unit model anymore they are unable to do the needful.

 

The complainant has used the TV for nearly 5 years from date of purchase i.e. 09.05.2009 and only lodged the complaint on 14.04.2014, hence we feel asking for full price of the TV is not in line with prudent behavior and therefore following the principle of natural justice and equity we direct the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) inclusive of compensation and litigation costs.

 

The awarded amount is to be paid within one month of the receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay an interest @ 10% p.a. on the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand only)  till realization.

 

• One true copy each of this order be sent to the concerned parties by registered post.
• This final order be sent to the server (www.confonet.nic.in).
• Thereafter, the file is consigned to record room.

 

Order Pronounced on:  29^th November, 2017

 

 

 

(S.S.SIDHU)                            (HARSHALI KAUR)                             (DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR)

  MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT