DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/201/2022

Date of Institution   : 27.08.2022

Date of Decision    : 12.07.2023

Naveen Kumar Garg son of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar resident of House No. 212 Ramrajiya Enclave opp Noor Hospital Barnala.      

                          …Complainant Versus

1.Ravi Electronics B-111/1 Shahid Bhagat Singh Road Opp Singla Sanitary Barnala 148101.

2.Realme Mobile telecommunications (INDIA) 3rd floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 India.     

                       …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh. V.K. Goyal counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Himanshu Garg counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The present complaint has been received through E-daakhil. The complainant namely Naveen Kumar Garg has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against Ravi Electronics and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased one LED TV Model Realme 43 Inch Smart Android bearing Sr. No. 01CFTV436200907876 vide invoice No. 81 dated 25.5.2021 for an amount of Rs. 21,000/- from the opposite party No. 1. It is further alleged that the opposite party had given warranty on the above said LED TV as per company policy 1+1 years and the complainant using the LED TV for personal use. It is alleged that from 4.8.2022 LET TV not working as his display panel have problem and for the same information was given to opposite party No. 1 but they say that it was out of warranty and the same was repaired with chargeable fee. However, as per company policy it was under warranty of 1+1 year. It is further alleged that on 8.8.2022 service complaint No. C101220808052813689-01 registered on opposite party No. 2 toll free number. On 9.8.2022 Service Engineer visited and checked the LED TV and stated that Panel need to be replaced under warranty but when bill was shown to him he stated that the bill is without GST, so it is not acceptable and he closed the complaint without repair the LET TV. It is further alleged that on 10.8.2022 Email sent at helpline mail id of opposite party No. 2 and a call was received from them but they refused to repair the LED TV, however manufacturing date having less than 2 years (2 years are warranty period). It is further alleged that the complainant made requests to National Consumer Helpline Grievance registered for Mr. Ravi Electronics-3735611 and National Consumer Helpline Grievance registered for Realme-3746310. The complainant made several attempts/requests to the opposite parties to replace the defective penal of TV, but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To refund the purchase amount of said LED TV i.e. Rs. 21,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase to the complainant till realization.   

ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs. 1500/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary legal objections interalia on the grounds that prior to purchase the said LED TV, the opposite party No. 1 clearly explained the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 have not any GST number because they do not fall under the purview of GST, so the opposite party No. 1 issued the bill without GST and also show the Tax invoice by which the opposite party No. 1 purchased the above LED TV from Khurana Electronics out side Sunami Gate, Sangrur vide invoice No. 35 dated 12.4.2021. It is further submitted that the complainant purchased the above said LED TV after verification from the market in regard to the quality, rate and warranty as prescribed by the company vide bill No. 81 dated 25.5.2021. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 1 clearly told the complainant that the warranty will be given by the company and the company shall be responsible for the same. It is clearly printed on the bill issued to the complainant that “Ravi Electronics is the sale dealer of company and the company will be responsible for only warranty of any item”. The complainant directly lodged the complaint with the opposite party No. 2 and all the services were provided by the company as per policy and the opposite party No. 2 is responsible and bound to provide the services etc. 

4. On merits, it is denied that from 4.8.2022 the LED TV not working as his display panel have problem and it is denied that the information was given to the opposite party No. 1. It is also denied that as per company policy it was under warranty of 1+1 year. It is further submitted that neither the complainant lodged any complaint with the opposite party No. 1 nor he visited the shop of opposite party No. 1. It is further submitted that the opposite party No. 1 purchased the above said article after paid the GST as per provisions of law, so the opposite party No. 2 has no right to refuse to provide service to the complainant. It is submitted that the responsibility to replace the above said LED TV of the complainant on the burden of opposite party No. 2 who is the manufacturer and gave warranty of the said article. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed the material facts. The present complaint is vexatious, frivolous and filed with mala-fide intention for harassing the opposite party No. 2. The complainant has not approached with clean hands. Further, there is no expert opinion with the complainant to show that the product in question has an inherent defect or the fault arose due to some manufacturing defect. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased the said device on 25.5.2021 from the opposite party No. 1 and after using the device for 1 year and 3 months he first contacted the answering opposite party in the month August 2022 for display issue and as per the policy of answering opposite party a complaint IDC101220808052813689-01 was created on 8th August 2022. The service team of opposite party No. 2 visited the complainant to diagnose the TV and requested him to provide the bill of TV for warranty authentication and he shared the bill with service team, however the same was not authentic since there is no GST number mentioned in the bill, hence the case was closed on the next dat itself on 9th August 2021 without repair service. It is further submitted that the demands of the complainant is not justified and completely against the warranty policy of the opposite party No. 2. The present complaint qua the opposite party No. 2 is baseless, without cause of action because the complainant has come with concocted story to harass the opposite party No. 2. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.  

6. To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of serial number/Bar code Ex.C-3, copy of Box slip Ex.C-4, copy of adhaar card Ex.C-5, copy of reply of consumer helpline Ex.C-6, copy of online warranty card Ex.C-7, copies of whatsapp calls details and messages Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-11, copy of email Ex.C-12, copy of consumer helpline grievance history print out Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence. The complainant has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder against the version of opposite parties.  

7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravi Kumar Ex.O.P1/1, copy of bill Ex.O.P1/2 and closed the evidence. 

8. The opposite party No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gaurav Sachdeva Ex.O.P2/1, copy of bill Ex.O.P2/2, copy of warranty policy Ex.O.P2/3, copy of authority letter/resolution Ex.O.P2/4 and closed the evidence.   

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the opposite party No. 2. 

10. In order to prove his case the complainant alongwith his complaint has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has taken the stand as mentioned in the complaint. He further placed on record copy of bill No. 81 dated 25.5.2021 Ex.C-2, which shows that the complainant has purchased one LED TV 43 Inch Smart TV of Realme by paying an amount of Rs. 21,000/- from the opposite party No. 1. Apart from this he has placed on record Ex.C-3 which shows the serial number/Bar code of the product i.e. 01CFTV436200907876. The complainant further placed on record copy of Box slip Ex.C-4, which  shows the detail of product. He has also placed on record copy of reply of consumer helpline Ex.C-6, which proves that the complainant has lodged a complaint with the company and the company written in the column of remark that as per customer he purchased realme TV on 15th May 2021 and now he is facing display flickering issue in it and he created an appointment for him but technician did not provide him service. So informed the customer that as per the update from our team he is not having GST invoice and further suggested him to contact point of purchase and take the GST invoice from them to claim the warranty of the device. Hence, the case stands closed. The complainant has further placed on record copy of online warranty card Ex.C-7 in which it is mentioned as Extended warranty for panel 1+1 year. The complainant has also sent Whatsapp messages and Emails to the opposite parties Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12. The complainant has also placed on record Ex.C-13 copy of consumer helpline grievance history printout, which shows that the complainant has online lodged his complaint with the opposite parties. 

11. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 in order to rebut the case of complainant has placed on record affidavit of Ravi Kumar Ex.O.P1/1, which is nothing but word to word repetition of the written version filed by the opposite party No. 1. Further, copy of Tax Invoice No. 35 dated 12.4.2021, which shows that the opposite party No. 1 purchased products from Khurana Electronics, Sunami Gate Sangrur and the above said invoice has the GST number. The opposite party No. 2 has placed on record affidavit of Gaurav Sachdeva authorized representative of opposite party No. 2 Ex.O.P2/1, in which he has stated that the service team of the opposite party No. 2 visited the complainant place to diagnose the TV and requested the complainant to provide the bill with warranty authentication and found that the bill shared by the complainant with the service team was not authentic since there is no GST number mentioned in the bill, hence the case was closed without repair service. The opposite party No. 2 also placed on record copy of bill dated 25.5.2021 Ex.O.P2/2, copy of warranty policy Ex.O.P2/3 and copy of authority letter Ex.O.P2/4. We are of the view that generally no customer checked GST number on the invoice at the time of purchasing and from the version of opposite parties it is proved that the above said problem/defect was within the knowledge of opposite parties but they did not repair the device due to lack of GST number in the invoice. However, the purchasing of above said LED TV by the complainant is admitted by both the opposite parties. The LED TV in question was within the extended warranty period (as mentioned in Ex.C-7) when the defect/problem has been occurred, so the complainant is entitled for the repair of LED TV.

Therefore, we are of the view that as the above said LED TV was within extended warranty period, so the opposite parties are liable to repair the LED TV and replace its defective parts free of costs. 

12. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to repair LED TV of the complainant by replacing all his defective parts free of costs. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.

13. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

14. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       12th Day of July, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member