SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. GUPTA VISION
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-6-4
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 20,2014

SANTOSH GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
Gupta Vision Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 02.04.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant
(2.)IN brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Mitashi LED TV Model No.22v07 from Opposite Party No.1 on 12.11.2011, having one year warranty against bill (Ann.C -1). It was stated that just after a few days of purchase, the LED TV started giving problems in display of picture and picture quality. It was further stated that the LED TV, in question, did not start on many occasions and after some time it completely stopped working. As such, it is lying unusable. The matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, but they did not take any steps to sort out the problem. It was further stated that on two or three occasions the Engineers of Opposite Party No.2, came to repair the LED TV, but due to inherent manufacturing defects, in the same, it could not be repaired. The e -mails sent to the Opposite Parties did not yield any result. It was further stated that when the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1, for replacement of the said LED TV, it flatly refused to either replace the same or refund the bill amount. It was further stated that the complainant never enjoyed the said product for the purpose it was purchased despite spending money. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed.
(3.)IN its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 admitted the sale of TV, in question. It was stated that the complaint was not maintainable, against the answering Opposite Party, because Mitashi Edutainment Private Limited, Mumbai (OP -2) was the manufacturer whereas, the answering OP used to sell the TV on behalf of the said manufacturer under warranty card. It was further stated that the complainant never contacted the answering OP. The complaint was made directly to Opposite Party No.2, and its engineers attended the same during the warranty period of one year and satisfied him, who also signed the documents. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.
In its written reply, Opposite Party No.2 admitted the sale of LED TV manufactured by it. It was stated that the said LED TV was fully checked and it was okay. The LED TV was sold to Opposite Party No.1 by giving instructions in the product manual as well as in the warranty card. It was denied that after the purchase of LED TV, it worked only for a few days and started giving problems. It was also denied that the engineers failed to rectify the defect. It was further stated that the complainant purchased the said LED TV for his in -laws and they being old persons having no knowledge to operate the same according to the manual provided to them. It was further stated that the first complaint of the complainant lodged on 20.9.2012 regarding Distortion Sound (Sound Problem) was attended to by the engineers, and as per the engineers report, there was no problem, in the said TV, but the complainant insisted to replace it only. It was further stated that the second complaint of the complainant was also attended on 30.9.2012 and on visiting the house of the complainant, it was noticed that there was no problem in the TV at all. It was further stated that the old and elderly family members informed the engineer that in some channels, there was sound problem, which was explained to them that it happens due poor transmission only, as a result whereof, sound modulation becomes high in certain channels and modulation level becomes low in certain other channels apart from experiencing disturbance in sound. The concerned engineers also made the old person understand that the problem was not related to the TV, but related to transmission. It was further stated that inspite of good condition of the TV, the service incharge decided to change the mother board of the LED TV, to which the customer agreed. Accordingly, the mother board was changed on 09.10.2012 and after that the customer was satisfied and there was no problem in the TV. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being false.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.