Complainant Charanjit Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace the LED and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental pain and agony for deficiency in service alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that he had purchased one LED of Philips 39” Smart D.D.B from Ajay Electroworld, Batala, on 7.6.2017 vide invoice No.7242 for Rs.37,900/- and its warranty was one year. Soon after the purchasing of LED, he found clicking/cracking noise in the LED. Whenever he turn on LED, a cracking/clicking noises occurred from the back side of LED and he and his family members could not listen the sound of LED due to disturbing noise occurred from its back side. He visited the shop of opposite party no.2 and one of the employees visited his house and did normal repair and assured that it would not create any problem. When problem arose again, he visited the shop of opposite party no.2 in the month of August and one service man namely Nishan Singh visited his house twice in the month of September, but could not resolve the issue of cracking sound. He again visited the shop of opposite party no.2 several times in the month of Oct. and November, one of the employees of opposite party no.2 visited his house and tried to resolve the issue with the help of adhesive tape but could not resolve. He again visited the shop in December and January and Nishan Singh Service man visited his house in the month of Feb 2018, i.e. on 12.2.2018, 23.2.2018 and 27.02.2018 and replaced one part of LED but the problem could not be resolved and now he visited the shop of opposite party no.2 many times but opposite party no.2 flatly refused to resolve the issue arose in the LED. The LD was having manufacturing defect and employees of opposite party no.2 and service man of opposite party no.3 failed to resolve the issue of cracking noises. Opposite party no.1 even had not issued original copy of invoice infact he had issued a duplicate copy of invoice no.7242 dated 7.6.2017, opposite party no.1 had malafide intention from the very beginning and intentionally sold LED, which had manufacturing defect. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, Sh.Kapil Dev had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 for two times and thereafter he did not appear in the Forum. Case called several times, but none had come present on its behalf. Therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.8.2018. Opposite party 3 did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.7.2018 and complainant withdraws the complaint against opposite party no.2 by giving separate statement.
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant had filed his own affidavit Ex.C-1/A and photo copy of bill dated 7.6.2017 for Rs.37,900/-.
5. We have heard the ld.counsels for the complainants and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant had purchased one LED of Philips 39” Smart D.D.B from Ajay Electroworld, Batala, on 7.6.2017 vide invoice No.7242 for Rs.37,900/- and its warranty was one year. Soon after the purchasing of LED, he found there is manufacturing defects and many complaints were lodged with the opposite parties, but all in vain. In this regard opposite party issued photo copy of bill dated 7.6.2017 Ex.C-1 but LED is not functioning properly. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. The complainant in order to prove the entire version has relied upon his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1/A, which fully proves that the complainant was feeling harassed by the improper functioning of defective LED supplied to complainant. Though complainant has alleged in his complaint about repeated visits and complaints put forward to opposite parties but nothing is placed on the file in writing to prove these complaints about defective LED. On the other hand opposite parties have also not bothered to contest their case. Inspite of appearing in the Forum opposite party no.1 did not present written reply and after that failed to appear in the Forum and was declared exparte. All this clearly shows that opposite party no.1 was having malafide intention that’s why the opposite party refrained from contesting the complaint.
8. During the course of arguments complainant has made a statement on 22.10.2018, recorded separately in the Forum that he has received one LED Philps 39’ amounting to Rs.24,960/- by delivery man of PE Electronics Limited claiming himself as the delivery man of Philps India Limited. The complainant has no other option but to accept this new LED having a difference of price of about Rs.13,000/- from the original LED which was having manufacturing defect and prayed that the remaining amount of difference alongwith compensation and litigation expenses be granted in his favour.
9. In view of the statement made by the complainant in the Forum, the present complaint is partly allowed against opposite party no.1 and 3 (as the complaint against opposite party no.2 was withdrawn by complainant on 6.7.2018) with a direction to pay the amount of difference i.e. Rs.13,000/- alongwith compensation amounting to Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. Entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing with the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 9% on the due amount i.e. Rs.13,000/- plus Rs.8,000/- = Rs.21,000/- from the date of order till its realization.
10. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED: (Rachna Arora) (Rajita Sareen)
November 19, 2018. Member Presiding Member
MK
