Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. CC/17/150 1. Bhanu Saini Chatergarh patti Sirsa Sirsa Haryana ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Mahadev Elect. Sadar Bazar Sirsa Sirsa Haryana ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Roshan Lal Ahuja PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Rajni Goyat MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Paul Rathee MEMBER For the Complainant: Himanshu , Advocate For the Opp. Party: Sanjay, Advocate Dated : 08 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA. Consumer Complaint no. 150 of 2017 Date of Institution : 10.7.2017 Date of Decision : 08.01.2018. Bhanu Saini @ Rajiv Saini son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of Chattergarh Patti, Sirsa, District Sirsa. ??Complainant. Versus. 1. Mahadev Electronics through its Prop./ Authorized person Sadar Bazar, Sirsa. 2. Super Cassette Industries Private Limited, Plot No.1, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida (UP) 201301 through its Director/ Authorized officer. ...?Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA??????????PRESIDENT SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ?? MEMBER. Present: Sh. Himanshu Solera, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no.1. Sh. Surender Kumar, Representative for opposite party no.2. ORDER The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one new 32? LED bearing Model No.TSA 8080 make T-Series company for an amount of Rs.14,500/- on 10.10.2016 vide bill No.108 dated 10.10.2016. At the time of sale of said LED, the op no.1 posed himself to be authorized dealer of T-Series company and had given full guarantee of three years on the said LED. That after purchasing the above said LED, the complainant got installed the same in his house from the experienced mechanic as preferred by op no.1 and paid extra installation charges but after a short period of its purchase, the LED suffered problem in the Image quality as there occurred major defect in the display screen of the LED and this happened only due to manufacturing defect therein. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 and complained about the same and op no.1 got checked the defects in the LED from his own mechanic and got verified the defects in the LED due to manufacturing defect. It is further averred that thereafter as per the assurance of op no.1, the complainant left the defective LED at the shop of op no.1 as the op no.1 assured the complainant that they have reported the matter to the company and further assured that as the defects have been occurred within the guarantee period, the LED would be definitely replaced. The op no.1 in the presence of accompanied friend of complainant took the delivery of LED and also assured that the company would definitely redress the grievance of complainant within a short period but till today the op no.1 failed to redress the grievance of complainant and the problem in the LED exists till today. It is further averred that complainant has been taking rounds to op no.1 time and again but op no.1 always put off the complainant with one pretext or the other and kept the LED by making false assurance that the LED has been dispatched to the company and very soon the new LED would be delivered to the complainant but now op no.1 has bluntly refused to redress the grievance of complainant and returned the defective LED to the complainant. However, the complainant demanded from op no.1 the job sheet/ correspondence vide which the defective LED was dispatched to the company but op no.1 refused to provide any such correspondence. The op no.1 openly threatened the complainant that if the defective LED is not taken back by complainant then he will throw it in the sewerage hole and then the complainant would not get his defective LED also. That due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops, the complainant has suffered harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint. 2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of material facts, estoppal and that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of parties because the service centre of the company has not been impleaded as party in the complaint and the replying op has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party in the complaint because the guarantee/ warrantee conditions of the product is always mentioned in the booklet of the product manufactured by the company, hence after the sale of the product only the manufacturing company and the service provider of the company provide services to the consumers, hence the replying op is not liable for any defect in the product. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 is a mere dealer of the manufacturing company and doing his business on a nominal profit. The answering op has never given any guarantee or warrantee of LED to the complainant. The LED purchased by op no.1 from its manufacturer/ distributor in a sealed and packed condition has been sold. The complainant has wrongly stated that LED was left at the shop of replying op while the fact remains that no such LED was left at his shop. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied. 3. Opposite party no.2 also appeared and filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that in response to the complaint received from the customer, their service engineer attended the complaint on 1.6.2017 at the residence of the customer. On checking of the LED, he found that the front glass of the LED panel is cracked. However, the set was working for picture and sound. The LED panel (front glass) is made of thin glass sheet and apparently it appeared that it has been hit accidently and front glass of panel had cracked. This was brought to the notice of the customer immediately on its inspection and he was convinced that such a defect cannot happen on its own. This was the case of accidental crack of the panel at customer?s house conclusively. It is further submitted that the warranty is for maintenance of LED TV for any manufacturing defect/ deficiency but not for any damage/ crack happened due to negligence of the customer. It is further submitted that the LED was working on the day of its inspection despite negligence at the end of the customer causing breakage of glass panel and customer should pay actual cost of the panel glass for replacement. There was no manufacturing defect in the LED. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied. 4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is a proved fact on record that complainant had purchased a LED 32? for Rs.14,500/- on 10.10.2016 from opposite party no.1 against bill No.108. The LED is within the warranty period. The LED suffered from problem in its image quality as there occurred major defect in the display screen of the LED and this has been happened only due to manufacturing defect therein. The complainant approached the op no.1 with a complaint of defect in the LED who handed over the same to op no.2 but after retaining the same for a long time, same was returned without making same defect free rather the op no.1 has bluntly refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that op no.1 is only the dealer who markets the products of the manufacturer. He has nothing to do with the warranty as warranty is always given by the manufacturer. The LED was sent to op no.2 who is the service centre of the manufacturer but they returned the LED with the remarks that it is accidently damaged and same can be repaired only on charge basis. 8. Sh. Surender Kumar, Representative of op no.2 has filed written arguments in which it has been submitted that as per record of op no.2, the engineer of op no.2 attended the complaint on 1.6.2017 at the residence of the complainant and on checking the LED, he found that the front glass of the LED panel is cracked. However, the set was working for picture and sound. The LED panel is made of thin glass sheet and apparently it appeared that it has been hit accidently and front glass of panel has been cracked. This fact was brought to the notice of the customer immediately on its inspection and he was convinced that such a defect cannot happen on its own. This was the case of accidental crack of the panel at customer?s house conclusively and the present complaint is not maintainable as the required repair cannot be carried out under the warranty since it is not a manufacturing defect. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the case file as well as written submissions made by op no.2. 10. It is an undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had purchased a LED 32? from opposite party no.1 against bill No.108 on 10.10.2016. It is further an undisputed fact that LED of the complainant is not in working condition. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint and has placed on record the copy of bill dated 10.10.2016. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Chugh as Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. Op no.2 has furnished affidavit of Sh. K.K. Bansal Assistant Manager and has also produced copy of daily report servicing as Ex.R2. The perusal of this daily report servicing dated 1.6.2017 reveals that the LED was inspected and it is mentioned in the report that panel was broken but no reason has been assigned as to under what circumstances it was broken. The expert of op no.2 has not given his specific opinion in his inspection report that it was accidentally broken/ damaged at the house of the complainant. Further, the op no.2 has only furnished affidavit of one K.K. Bansal, Assistant Manager. The perusal of the written statement as well as affidavit of K.K. Bansal also reveals that op no.2 has only mentioned the fact that it has been hit accidently and front glass of the LED has been cracked which engineer of op no.2 observed while attending the complaint on 1.6.2017. But perusal of the evidence of op no.2 reveals that op no.2 has not mentioned the name of that engineer who attended the complaint on 1.6.2017, nor has furnished the affidavit of the attending engineer qua this fact. Further more, the stand of op no.2 is quite self contradictory. On one side they say that the set was working for picture and sound. On the other hand, they say that the LED has been accidently hit and front glass of the panel has been cracked. Further more, without any specific opinion for the accidental damage of the LED in the daily report servicing, it cannot be presumed that LED was damaged accidently. Since the LED was within warranty period, as such it was the legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repair in the LED and to make same defect free which they have not done. 11. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out the necessary repairs in the LED and to make it defect free even by replacing any part of the LED without any cost within 15 days from the receipt of the LED from the complainant. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant will have to hand over the LED in question to op no.1 against proper receipt. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. Announced in open Forum. President, Dated:8.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa. [HON'BLE MR. Roshan Lal Ahuja] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Rajni Goyat] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Paul Rathee] MEMBER