Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/767

SATNAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (WEST)

         150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO.  767/16

SH. SATNAM SINGH

S/O Late Sh. Kartar Singh,

R/O C-114, Vishwas Park,

Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059

                                                     VERSUS

1. VIJAY SALES

Through its Prop/Partner

Having its office at:

Block No. B-1, Near Amar Leela Hospital,

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058

 

2. M/S TOSHIBA INDIA PVT. LTD.

Through its Principal office

Managing Director/Director

Having its office at:

3.  

Tower-B, Phase-II, DLF Cyber city,

Gurgaon-122002, Haryana

                                                        Date of institution:25.11.2016

Order reserved on:31.03.2021

Judgement pronounced on:15.05.2021

 

O R D E R

 MS. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA, MEMBER

 

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by Shri Satnam Singh, the complainant against M/S Vijay Sales(OP-1) ,the retailer and M/S Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2),the manufacturer with the allegations of deficiency in services.

Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that on 04.11.2013 the complainant purchased Toshiba smart LED 46PX200ZX for Rs. 51,000/- from OP-1. The complainant has stated that he was assured about the quality, after sale service and 3-year warranty on the product manufactured by OP-2.

It has been stated that initially, the LED was functioning properly but in mid of year 2015, there was problem in the display for which OPs were informed. After repairs, the complainant was assured that there will not be any problem. However, in the month of May, 2016 there was problem in the panel for which again a complaint was registered. The representative of OP on 10.06.2016 visited the residence of the complainant and informed that the defective LED had to be taken to the workshop for repairs and would be return back after repairs within one week. Job card  of even date was also issued.

On 24.06.2016 the representative of OP-2, brought back the repaired LED but the same could not be switched on therefore, LED was taken back for repairs with the remarks on the job sheet as “set call back”. Despite assurance of returning the repaired LED, OP-2 not only failed to repair but also to return the LED, which not only caused mental agony and harassment but also deprived the complainant and his family from entertainment. Legal notice dated 04.08.2016 was issued to OPs,demanding the return of the repaired LED, which was neither replied nor complied with.

Hence, the present complaint with the prayer for directions to OP-1 and OP-2, jointly and severally to pay Rs. 51,000/- being the cost of LED along with interest @ 18 % p.a from the date of legal notice; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain andagony and Rs. 33,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Notice of present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2.None appear on behalf of OP-2 despite service hence they were proceeded ex-parte on 22.02.2017.

OP-1 filed their written statement, where they have taken plea in their defense that OP-1 was a dealer and the right to check and remove the defects was of the manufacturer(OP-2). Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

In rejoinder to the WS of OP-1, the complainant has stated that since, there was no proper authority letter in favor of Authorized Representative, thus reply of OP-1 could not be considered. The complainant has reiterated the contents of his complaint and denied those of the Written Statement filed on behalf of OP-1.

Evidence of way of affidavit was filed on behalf of complainant, who has got himself examined as CW-1and has deposed on oath the contents of  his complaint. He has relied upon copy of the bill dated 04.11.2013 and has got the same exhibited as EX- CW-1/1, original warranty card as EX-CW-1/2.

He has also got exhibited job card 10.06.2016 as EX-CW-1/3. Legal notice dated 04.08.2016 as EX-CW-1/4 and postal receipts and track report are EX-CW-1/5 and EX-CW-1/6 respectively.

OP-1 have got examined, Shri Sonu Kumar Singh, the Authorized Representative of M/S Vijay Sales. He has also deposed on oath the averments made in their WS. He has stated that, in case a complaint is received from the consumer, the same is forwarded to the manufacturer which was done in the instant case. It has been deposed that Toshiba Smart LEDhad manufacturing defects and it was manufacturer who was to be liable for repairs/ replacement.

We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. We have also gone through the written argument filed on behalf of the complainant and OP-1. The complainant is aggrieved by the act/omission on part of OPs to remove the defect and return the LED, which was still under warranty.

To appreciate the contentions of the complainant, we have to see the documents filed with the complaint. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 04.11.2013 as per which the complainant has purchased the product in question from OP-1 for Rs. 51,000/. If we looked at EX-CW-1/2,which is jobsheet dated 10.06.2016 as per which in the column, the complaint received bears “panel dead” and under the head defects observed it bears “panel defective”.

Further, against the second visit which is of date 24.06.2016, the reason for pendency is stated to be “set call back”. Thus, it is clear that the LED was taken back as, there was some defect, which again required repairs. Upon enquiry, the Ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the LED is still with OP-2.

Thus, from the above discussion, it is observed that the LED was taken by the executive of OP-2 on 10.06.2016 for repairs but the same has not been repaired and returned to the complainant till date. Since, OP-2 chose not to appear, the allegations made by the complainant have remained unrebutted. As far as OP-1is concerned, we hold that no liability can be fixed against OP-1 as they are the dealer and it is the OP-2, the manufacturer who had taken the defective product for repairs and had to provide the repairs as per warranty period.

Therefore, the facts and circumstances, we direct OP-2 to refund Rs. 51,000/- being the cost of LED, along with interest @ 7% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further award compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental harassment and agony inclusive of litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case the order is not complied within stipulated period, the compensation shall also carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the order till realization. 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to record room.