Haryana

Karnal

CC/97/2015

Rakesh Kumar S/o Ramdhari - Complainant(s)

Versus

01. Maya Traders - Opp.Party(s)

01 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.97 of 2015

                                                               Date of instt. 18.05.2015

                                                               Date of decision: 17.09.2015

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Sh.Ramdhari resident of House No.1280/18, New Char Chaman, Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Maya Traders, Opp.Sub Gas Agency, Dera Kar Sewa, Kalandri Gate, Karnal, through its Proprietor.

 

2.Airse India Ltd. Corporate Office 309, 3^rd Floor Narain Manzil 23 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001, India, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.   

         

 

 Present:       Complainant  in person.

                   Ops ex parte.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the averments that he purchased one  LED TV 23” SPECTRA (VT)  on 24.12.2014  for a sum of Rs.12650/- vide invoice  No. MT/00530  from Opposite Party (in short OP) No.1.The said LED  TV  was  manufactured by OP No.2. After   few days, LED TV became out of order, the picture on the screen was very bad and sound was very  low. He contacted the OP No.1, who assured him that he would send mechanic to his house and   the defect would be removed, but no mechanic was ever sent. Then, he made a complaint through mobile on 25.2.2015  bearing complaint No.64634 and on that complaint, a mechanic of OP no.1 came to his house, checked the LED TV and  told that some  part was required to be replaced and  he took that part with him saying that part will be replaced shortly, but thereafter, the mechanic did not visit. Again on 15.5.2015, he approached the OP no.1 to replace the said LED TV, but OP No.1 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, there was deficiency on the part of the Ops.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, but  none put into appearance on behalf of the Ops despite service, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them, vide order dated 17.7.2015.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.

 

4.                We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                The documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 show that one LED TV was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 24.12.2014 for Rs.12650/- and the said LED TV was having warranty of manufacturing defects for a period of 12 months. In the affidavit Ex.C1, the complainant reiterated the allegations of the complaint. This evidence of the complainant has gone  completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. From the evidence of the complainant it is established that LED TV purchased by him became defective within warranty period and the same was not repaired. In this way, it is established that there was some manufacturing defect in the LED TV sold by OP No.1 and manufactured by OP no.2 and there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP by not repairing or replacing the same.

 

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to replace the LED TV of the complainant with a new one of the same value. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:17.09.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Complainant  in person.

                   Ops ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.09.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.