The complainant Vinod Garg (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Ravi Enterprises and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant and his son purchased one LED TV make L.G. 32 inches Model LF505A, Sr. No. 509PLHT14441 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.477 dated 16.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.22,500/-. It is alleged that at the time of sale of said TV opposite party No.1 assured to complainant that the said LED TV of L.G company is of best quality and there is no complaint from any corner regarding functioning of the said TV. Opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre and the opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of TV.
It is alleged that on inducement by opposite party No.1 complainant got his LED insured from opposite party No.4 vide policy No. OG-17-1113-9930-00000003.
It is further alleged that after installation of LED TV at home on dated 04.11.2016 the aforesaid LED TV switched off automatically when complainant along with his family members were enjoying some program on LED TV and thereafter the same has not switched on. On this complainant alongwith his son Dinesh Garg visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and lodged complaint. Opposite party No.1 forwarded complaint of complainant to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 sent its authorized representative to check the LED TV of complainant. After checking representative of opposite party No.2 told to complainant that the panel of LED TV has burned/damaged as such the same is required to be replaced.
It is further alleged that opposite party No.2 refused to repair the LED TV of complainant by saying that damaged to the TV is not covered to under warranty clause and advised the complainant to lodge the insurance claim with opposite party No.4.
It is alleged that complainant lodged the insurance claim with opposite party No.4 vide claim No.46092784 but the opposite party No.4 refused to accede to the request of complainant by saying that the LED TV is to be repaired in warranty.
It is also alleged that complainant through his son Dinesh Garg also issued Legal Notice upon opposite parties to get the aforesaid LED TV repaired or replaced with new one but the opposite parties neither replied to the notice nor done the needful.
It is alleged that due to aforesaid act of opposite parties complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation, loss of reputation and have also deprived of enjoyment of TV programs.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to repair or replace the defective LED TV with new one and further for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- to complainant on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and loss of reputation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, non appeared on behalf on opposite party No.1 so opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18-9-2018. Opposite parties No. 2 to 4 appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complainant by filing version.
Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed their joint written version raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in its present form, that complainant has no locus standi or cause-of-action to file the present complaint, that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, that complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands rather concealed true and material facts. Opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with providing service to the complainant rather same is to be provided to the consumer only by opposite party No. 2 and 3 as per terms and conditions of warranty clause or by insurance company i.e. opposite party No.4 as per policy, that earlier son of complainant namely Dinesh Kumar had filed similar complaint and the same was withdrawn without any permission to file the same a fresh, that complaint is time barred and complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of complainant.
On merits, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 pleaded that it is matter of record regarding purchase of LED TV by the complainant from the shop of opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.477 dated 16-02-2016 for Rs. 22,500/-. Opposite party No.1 never assured the complainant to provide any kind of service in case of defect in the LED TV rather the same is to be provided to only by opposite party No3 through its authorized service centre. It is further pleaded that complainant might have got the LED TV insured with opposite party No.4 as per is own discretion. Denying all the other averments of complainant prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Opposite party No.4 filed their written version by taking legal objections, that the present that earlier a complaint No. CC/17/56 on the same cause-of-action was filed by Dinesh Garg s/o complainant claiming his ownership of LED in question and the same complaint was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.03.2018, so the present complaint is same cause-of-action is not maintainable, that insurance policy is contract and the both the parties are under obligation to obey/fulfill all the terms and conditions of policy, that the complainant has filed the present complaint either getting the damaged LED repaired or replaced from opposite parties No. 1 to 4 and complainant has submitted claim form to opposite party No.4. After verification of claim forms and details of occurrence of loss it was revealed that the loss/damaged to the LED TV was caused due to high voltage fluctuations so the said loss is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. That it is mentioned in the terms and conditions under special contingency insurance exclusion clause “ the policy does not cover :- 1) loss or damage to the property by or due to or arising from : - mechanical and / electrical break down and / or derangement, overloading or strain, over-running, excessive pressure, short circuiting and / or self heating, that complainant has concealed material documents from forum as well as opposite party No.4 as the complainant has concealed the effect that the TV screen got damaged due to high voltage fluctuation and the policy issued to the complainant does not cover any loss/ damaged resulting from mechanical / or electrical breakdown and / or derangement, overloading or strain, that complainant did not submit the asked documents i.e. Narration of incidence early, Photographs of TV showing damages clearly, Purchase invoice copy of TV, Insurance membership card copy, TV Installation report, Service Engineer Report, Repair estimates/ repair invoice, I.D Proof and residence Proof and that the complainant has no locus standi or cause-of-action to file the present complaint against opposite party No.4.
On merits opposite party No.4 admitted the issuance of insurance policy to complainant qua LED in question and further pleaded that claim filed by complainant was not covered under the policy as the damage caused to the LED was due to high voltage fluctuation so the claim was rightly repudiated opposite party No.4 denying other averments of complainant opposite party no.4 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vinod Garg dated 24-07-2018 (Ex. C-9) and photocopy of other documents as (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties 2 & 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Deep Chand dated 08-10-2018 (Ex. OP-2/2), and photocopy of Job Sheet (Ex. OP-2/1).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia dated 04.10.2018 (Ex. OP-4/1) and photocopy of documents (Ex. OP- 4/2 to 4/8).
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.
Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.
We have given thoughtful consideration to these submissions.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the LED purchased by him got defect within warranty period and the complainant requested to the opposite party to repair the LED or replace it new one but opposite parties No. 1,2 and 3 refused to do the needful by saying that the complainant should file an insurance claim as the LED in question is insured with opposite party No.4. Thereafter when complainant filed insurance claim with opposite party No.4 then opposite party No.4 repudiated the claim by saying that claim not admissible and payable as per terms and conditions of policy. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite parties in collusion with each other put the matter off on one pretext or the other and finally refused to accede to the genuine request of complainant hence complainant is entitled to the relief claimed.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 argued that alleged defect was not covered under warranty and since the product was insured by opposite party No.4 so the complainant should got his grievance redressed from opposite party No.4.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 submitted that the alleged defects is not covered under the insurance policy as the loss/damaged has caused due to high voltage fluctuation.
We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the record.
Admitted facts of this case are that complainant purchased the LED from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 477 dated 16.2.2016 (Ex. C-1) and the same was insured with opposite party No.4 vide insurance policy (Ex. OP-4/3). It is further admitted that claim was submitted by complainant with opposite party No.4 and the same was repudiated by the opposite party no.4.
Ex. C-2 is the photocopy of terms and conditions of insurance policy supplied by opposite party No.1 to complainant. Perusal of Ex. C-2 i.e. terms and conditions reveals that LED in question was purchased by complainant from Ravi Enterprises (opposite party No.1 ) and the same was insured vide policy no. OG-17-1113-9930-00000003 for one year from the date of purchase and was protected against theft burglary and accidental damage. Perusal of Job Sheet (Ex. OP-2/1) reveals that the defect in LED the defect reported by engineers of opposite parties is mentioned as dead. Ex. C-3 is the insurance claim form which proves that damaged occurred on 4.11.2016 within warranty period. Ex. OP-4/3 is the duplicate copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions. Perusal of this document reveals that LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd i.e. opposite party No. 3 is mentioned as insured and opposite party No.4 as insurer. Ex. OP-4/2 is the repudiation letter vide which the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that claim is not falling under the scope of policy.
Opposite party No. 2 and 3 in their written version specifically pleaded that opposite party No.1 has nothing to do with providing service to the complainant rather same is to be provided to the consumer only by opposite party No. 2 and 3 as per terms and conditions of warranty clause or by insurance company i.e. opposite party No.4 as per policy. Further perusal of the documents produced on file by parties reveals that damage occurred to the LED of the complainant in warranty period but the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 has not brought on file any warranty card to prove their contention. Further damage is also covered under insurance policy being accidental damage but the opposite parties neither repaired the LED under warranty nor under insurance claim.
We are of the view that complainant is not at fault rather opposite parties in collusion with each other harassed him and did not do the needful. Even opposite party No.1 did not bother to appear in this Commission to context the case. It is a fact that a person purchases a product of his liking for its use and enjoyment. Only sale of product by seller/manufacturer and sale of insurance policy by insurance company should not be the only motive but after sale service by seller/manufacturer and appreciation of genuine insurance claim by insurance company is also their duty/liability. But in this case opposite party failed to do so. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
So, keeping in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties No. 1 to 3 with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to repair the LED TV or if LED TV is not repairable then to replace the same with new one of same model and description or to refund the price of LED TV in question. Since, opposite party No.3 got its product insured with opposite party No.4 so opposite parties shall be at liberty for reimbursement of claim from opposite party No.4 as per terms and conditions of policy.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
