Haryana

Karnal

CC/103/2015

Kusum Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Sargam Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Dogra

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                     Complaint No.103 of 2015

                                                         Date of instt.: 29.05.2015

                                                     Date of decision 13.10.2017

 

Kusum Sharma, resident of House no.196/12, Patwan Mohalla,Karnal.

                                                                      ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

1.Sargam Electronics, Plot no.3, Avtar Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its Manager Mr. Bhart.

2. Mr. Vikas, Service Owner of L.G. Company, near Gali no.8, Hansi Road, Karnal.

3.  Service Manager of LG Company, Super Tyre Building, opposite New World, National Highway Karnal.

4. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A/27, Mohan Co-operative Enterprises Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager.

 

                                                                      …… Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before      Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:- Shri  Vinod Dogra Adv. for complainant.

                Shri Mohit Sachdeva Adv. for opposite parties ano.2 to 4.

                 Opposite party no.1 exparte.

 

                   (JAGMAL SINGH PRESIDENT)

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that she purchased one LED 32 LB 530-A  from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23000/-, vide invoice no.Karnal/01023 dated 17.1.2015. Opposite party no.1 assured her  that if any defect would be arise in the said LED then in that case the LED would be replaced with new one. The officials of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 affixed the LED in the proper place in her house on 19.1.2015 even and when the abovesaid LED was “ON” by the official of the opposite parties no.2 and 3, it was noticed that there was no “brightness” on the screen of the LED and it was showing “black” picture. Then she made a complaint regarding the aforesaid problem at Toll Free no.1800-180-9999 dated 20.1.2015 at 5.30 p.m. and the complaint no. RNA-150120034492 was registered.  The Service Engineer namely Shri Randhir Singh came and after checking the LED, he advised her to get a connection of TATA Sky, otherwise the “brightness” will remains “as it is” because the opposite party no.2 is Distributor of TATA Sky at Karnal.  She at her own level got checked the abovesaid LED from Mohindera Electronics, 21, Red Cross Market, Karnal, who visited her residence on 28.1.2015 and after checking, he opined that LD LED, TV321B530A, serial no.407PLAG204936 has no “brightness” on the screen of the said LED and it was showing “black” picture, copy of Expert Opinion dated 28.1.2015 is attached. She has been making repeated requests to opposite parties no.1,2, and 3 but to no effect. She made complaint on 20.1.2015 and the same has been closed on 301.2015 without solving the problem in the LED.  Then she served a legal notice dated 9.2.2015 upon the opposite parties, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused her mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. None has put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1 and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 11.8.2016.

3.             Opposite parties no.2 to 4 appeared and filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections regarding has not come with clean hands; complaint is not legally maintainable; locus standi and cause of action. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased one Led on 17.1.2015. It has also been admitted that the said LED was affixed/installed in the premises of the complainant. The service Engineer namely Randhir Singh never advised the complainant to get a connection of TATA Sky. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed her evidence on 17.3.2016.

5.             On the other hand, opposite parties no.2 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jyoti Prasad Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 11.8.2016.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             From the pleadings of the case, it is clear that the parties have admitted that the complainant has purchased one LED 32 LB 530-A from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23000/-, vide invoice no.Karnal/01023 dated 17.1.2015. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the said LED was installed in the house of the complainant on the evening of 19.1.2015. According to the complainant when the abovesaid LED “on” by the official of the opposite parties no.2 and 3, it was noticed that there was no “brightness” on the screen of the LED. It is further alleged by the complainant that official of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 advised the complainant to make a call on the toll free number and accordingly the complainant made a complaint on the toll free no.1800-180-9999 dated 20.1.2015 at 5.30 p.m. and the  complaint no. RNA-150120034492 was registered. Registration of the complaint is admitted by the opposite party. According to the complainant one service engineer namely Randhir Singh came to her residence and after checking the LED, he advised the complainant to get a connection of TATA Sky otherwise the brightness of the LED will remain “as it is”. It is further alleged that inspite of the complaint made by the complainant no action was taken by the opposite party. Thereafter, the complainant at her own level got checked the abovesaid LED from Mohindera Electronics, Red Cross Market, Karnal, who visited at the residence of the complainant on 28.1.2015 and after checking gave his report Ex.C2, vide which he opined that LED 32 LB 530-A serial no.407PLAG204936 has no “brightness”. It is further alleged that the abovesaid complaint dated 20.1.2015 of the complainant has been closed by the opposite party on 30.1.2015 without solving the problem. The complainant has served a legal notice dated 9.2.2015 upon the opposite parties. The opposite parties have denied the allegation of the complainant that there was no “brightness” in the LED. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that the LED was purchased on 17.1.2015; the same was installed at the house of complainant on the evening 19.1.2015 and the complainant made the complaint on 20.1.2015 regarding the abovesaid defect. The complainant has placed the report of Mohindera Electronics dated 28.1.2015 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there was no brightness on the screen of LED in question which was inspected by Mohinder Pal the sole proprietor of Mohindera Electronics. It is pertinent to mention here that it is also clear from this said report that said Mohinder Pal having 2 years Diploma in Electronics from I.T.I. Karnal. So, he was a qualified person. Moreover, the affidavit of Mohinder Pal has also been placed on the file by the complainant in support of his version. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated 9.2.2015. The opposite parties have not tendered any such document from which it can be proved that the LED in question was alright. The complainant made the complaint immediately i.e. on the next day from the installation of the LED in question at the house of complainant, but the opposite parties have not resolved the grievance of the complainant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the LED in question purchased by the complainant is defective from the very first day and the opposite parties have failed to replace the same. Hence the opposite parties are deficient in service.

8.             Thus, as a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the LED in question of the complainant with the same model as purchased by the complainant within the period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if the same model as purchased by the complainant is not available with the opposite parties then the opposite parties refund the Rs.23000/- as cost of the LED to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. All the parties are jointly and severally liable. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.10.2017

                                                                        (Jagmal Singh)

                                                                           President,

                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member