Haryana

Karnal

CC/181/2015

Rahul S/o Ravi Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.181 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt. 06.08.2015

                                                         Date of decision:08.01.2018

 

Rahul aged 43 years son of Sh. Ravi Dutt, resident of House no.64-A, Model Town, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                           …….Complainant.   

                                        Versus

 

1. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. LGEIL, Super Tyre Building, near Anaj Mandi, Opposite New World Restaurant, G.T.Road, Karnal, through its Managing Director.

2. Kabir Enterprises, 319-R, near SBI Training Centre, Model Town, Karnal, through Sh. Mandeep Singh, its proprietor.

                                          

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

   

             

 Present  Complainant in person.

                Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

                Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                               

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he purchased one LED  for Rs.1,60,000/-, vide invoice no.1157 dated 31.10.2014 from OP no.2. The said LED was got installed by OP no.2 from the representative of OP no.1 at his residence. After 3-4 days, the said LED developed “major problem” and it stopped “functioning”. He made complaint at the “Customer Care” centre vide complaint no.RNA141105063475 on 5^th November, 2014. The service centre team visited at his resident and inspected the LED in question and said that is “dead” due to “major defect” in the LED due to some manufacturing defect. The complainant was told by them that a “brand new piece” of the same make LED will be given to him within few days. After few days the officials of OP no.1 told him that the same model of LED is not available in “stock” and they assured him that the amount of will be refunded. He completed all the formalities regarding giving papers for refund, details of account number of the bank and identity proof etc. as required by the OPs, but the OPs did not return the amount after repeated requests. In this way there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant lodged the complaint with the OP no.1 but it is denied that the service engineer told that the complainant will be given a brand new piece in replacement. Rather, the service engineer, who visited the premises of complainant after checking the same found that the PCB of the said LED has been damaged due to short circuit which can be repaired by replacing the same but the PCB was required to be brought from the company upon placing the order for the same. After receipt of the said part PCB the service engineer again visited the premises of the complainant where the complainant only refused to get the said LED repaired but also misbehaved with the service engineer. It is pertinent to mention here that when the said LED could be repaired then no question of getting formalities completed for refund arises. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service hence OP no.2 proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 11.09.2015.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Mandeep Singh Ex.CW2/B and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jyoti Prasad Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 12.1.2017.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP no.1 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant purchased LED55LM6700 ATRZ 207PT, one pc for Rs.1,60,000/- vide invoice no.1157 dated 31.10.2014 from OP no.2. The OP no.2 got installed the said LED from the representative of OP no.1 at the residence of complainant. Said LED develops problem after 3-4 days about which complaint was made at customer care centre vide complaint no. RNA 141105063475 on 5.11.2014.

8.             The complainant alleged that the service centre team visited and inspected the LED and told that it is dead due to major defect and further told that brand new piece of the same make will be given within few days. After few days, the officials of OP no.1 told that same model of LED is not available in the stock and assured for refund of the amount after completing some formalities. The complainant completed the bank formalities and submitted the required documents. The complainant has been repeatedly calling upon the OPs for the refund of the amount but with no effect. The complainant also sent e-mails on 10 June, 2015. It is also alleged by the complainant that OP no.2 replied that he has also requested many times to OP no.1 with regard to complaint of complainant and also gave intimation vide email dated 12.6.2015 that complainant has submitted the papers for refund and the same papers have been sent to OP no.1 twice but no action was taken by OP no.1.

9.             The OP no.1 contended that the service engineer, who checked the LED found that the PCB of said LED was damage due to short circuit, which can be repaired by replacing the same but PCB was to be brought from the company as the same was not available with the Engineers at that time. It is further contended that after receipt of said part (PCB), the service engineer again visited the premises of complainant where the complainant not only refused to get the said LED repaired but also misbehaved with him.

10.           To prove its case, the complainant tendered into his evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A containing all the allegations, copy of invoice Ex.C1, copy of email dated 10.6.2015 Ex.C2 and in his additional evidence affidavit of Mandeep Singh, authorized representative of OP no.2 as Ex.CW2/B and copies of e-mail dated 10.6.2015 and 12.6.2015 as Ex.C3. The admitted facts mentioned above were also admitted in the affidavit Ex.CW2/B by the representative of OP no.2. The version of complainant is also supported by the representative of OP no.2 in his affidavit Ex.CW2/B wherein it is also stated that the official of OP no.1 told the complainant that same model of LED was not available in stock and thus as per practice the amount will be refunded by OP no.1 in few days after completing some bank formalities. It is also stated by the representative of OP no.2 that the bank formalities were submitted twice to OP no.1 but the amount of complainant was not refunded for which the complainant repeated visited his office. On the other hand, the OP no.1 has tendered only affidavit in his evidence. The OP no.1 has neither placed the report of the service engineer on the file nor examined him nor produced his affidavit. Therefore, the OP no.1 has withheld the material evidence, so OP no.1 is failed to prove its contention. No doubt the OP no.2 has proceeded against exparte but the allegations of the complainant are also proved from the evidence of the representative of OP no.2. As admitted by the parties, that the LED become defective within 5 days and in this situation replacement was the best option with the OPs but the OPs failed to replace the same as the same model was not available with the OPs and thereafter there was only option to refund the amount. But the OPs have failed to refund the same. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs are deficient as the OPs have failed to refund the cost of LED amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the cost of the LED in question i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant.  We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.01.2018

                                                                       

                                                                President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Veena Rani)      

                          Member