Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/403

PRAMOD KAPUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAN - Opp.Party(s)

12 May 2021

ORDER

GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III(WEST)

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058.

 

CASE No. 403/2015

 

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Sh. PramodKapur

R/O C-12, IInd floor

Back side Jeevan Park

Som Bazar road,Uttam Nagar

New Delhi-110059       

Also At

Chamber No. 855 Lawyer’s Chamber,

District Court Complex,

Sector-10, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.                                                                  ….. Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. Sh. Aman (Owner)

     M/s Aman Electronics C-68, Jeevan Park

     Som Bazar Road

      New Delhi-110059                                             ..... Opposite Party-1

 

2.  Sh. Ahsan Ali (Owner)

     M/s Aman Electronics C-68, Jeevan Park

       Som Bazar Road

      New Delhi-110059                                             ..... Opposite Party-2

 

 

                                                  Date of Institution: - 23/06/2015

                                                          Judgment Reserved on:07/04/2021

                                     Judgment Passed on:12/5/2021

 

 

CORUM:-

         

MS. REKHA RANI                         (PRESIDENT)

MS. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA        (MEMBER)

 

Order by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

                                                                                     

                         Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Sh. Pramod Kapur, the complainant against, Sh. Aman (OP-1) and Sh. Ahsan Ali (OP-2), both owners of Ms. Aman Electronics with the allegations of deficiency in servicesand unfair trade practice.

                         Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that, on 27.01.2015, the complainant visited the shop of OPs namely M/s Aman Electronics for the repair of his Videocon Colour TV.  The complainant was informed by OPs that there was problem with “IC” component due to which the display and audio of the TV were not working.  An estimated cost of Rs. 300/- for the new “IC” component and Rs. 100/- for labour charges was given to the complainant.  Pursuant to which OP took the mother board/plate with the assurance to fix on  the same day around 4:00p.m.

                         It has been stated by the complainant that around 5:15 p.m. the colour TV again stopped working for which OP was informed immediately, but despite several requests, OPs did not repair the TV one pretext or the other. Initially complainant requested for a bill but he was informed that as a practice, no bill is issued by OPs and it was only after great persuasion ahand-written bill was issued.

                         It has been further alleged by the complainant that, the act/omission on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 has deprived the complainant and his wife from entertainment and further the loss of Rs. 370/- as subscription towards Airtel digital connection.  Legal notice dated 28.01.2015 was issued to OP-1 and OP-2, thereafter, re-rectification of the problem was offered to the complainant.  On 03.02.2015 the TV was repaired and delivered to the premises of the complainant but the problems continued to persist.  A reply dated02.02.2015 to the legal notice issued by complainant was received ,where OPs have stated that the colour TV was 13 years old to which, rejoinder dated 03.02.2015 was issued by the complainant. 

Ultimately seeing no solution, complaint was registered withVideocon Service Centre on 13.02.2015, where Rs.1,000/- were charged towards the replacement of original IC part code 8361 and another part with code 2499.  Thus, making a clear at the component used by OP-1 andOP-2 was not original.  Again, a legal notice dated 01.03.2015 was issued to OP-1 and OP-2 which was neither replied nor complied with. 

                         Feeling aggrieved ,the complainant has prayed for directions to OP-1 and OP-2 to pay Rs. 1,32,770/- along with interest @ 16% from 27.01.2015 till realization and Rs. 15000/- as cost of litigation.

                         The complainant has annexed the copy of the hand written bill dated 27.01.2015 along with visiting card as Annexure C/1, legal notice dated 28.01.2015 alongwith speed post receipts and track report as Annexure- C-1/2 (Colly): copy of reply to the legal notice dated 02.02.2015 as Annexure C-1/3 (Colly):copy of rejoinder dated 03.02.2015 along with postal receipts and track report as C-1/5 (Colly) and copy of legal demand notice dated 01.03.2015 and tracking report asAnnexure C-1/6 (Colly).

                         Notice of present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2 thereafter reply was filed.  They have taken several pleas in their defense such as the defective product was 15 years old, parts were not available in the market therefore, part of another make had to be used.  It was admitted that the complainant had asked for the bill but the same was not issued as they did not have a bill book but at the request of the complainant on a plain paper the bill was issued. 

                         It was submitted that finally they had repaired the TV on 01.02.2015 ,they had further assured the complainant that as and when another display kit will be available, they will replace the same.  Further, it was submitted that the complainant was misusing his profession to harass the OPs. 

                         Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs was filled by the complainant where the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed and those of the written statement have been denied. 

                         Evidence by way of affidavit was filled by the complainant where ,hehas got himself examined and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint.  He has got exhibited copy of the hand written bill of date 27.01.2015 as Ex. CW-1/1(Colly); copyof legal notice dated 28.01.2015 along with postal receipts and track report as Ex. CW-1/2 (Colly).  Reply dated 02.02.2015 to the legal notice and rejoinder dated 03.02.2015 along with postal receipts have been Ex. CW-1/3 (Colly) and Ex. CW-1/4(Colly) respectively.

                         The copy of estimate given by service technician on 14.02.2015 is Ex. CW-1/5 (Colly).  The complainant has also got exhibit the copy of legal demand notice dated 02.03.2015 alongwith postal receipt and track report asEx. CW-1/6 (Colly).

However, OPs did not file any evidence, as the counsel appearing for OPs stated that they do not want to file evidence. 

We have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for complainant and have also peruse the material placed on record.  It has been admitted by Ops in their Written Statement that they had repaired the color TV of the complainant and the kit used for repairs was not a branded one/compatible with the Color TV of the complainant. Further, OPs have also admitted that they had informed the complainant that as and when the kit will be available, the same will be replaced.

On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record the bill dated 25/02/2015, issued by authorized service center of Videocon, where the details of the I/C with part code as 8361 and cost as Rs. 460/- is given in the breakup. Thus, it is clear that the part replaced by OPs on 27/01/2015, was not compatible/original, which clearly shows that the services rendered by the OPs were not as per standard. Thus, we hold that OP-1 and OP-2 were deficient in rendering services.

At the same time the claim of compensation which is towards the higher side, made by the complainant is not supported by any document as to how he had suffered loss of work and clientele. It is settled principle of law that provisions of this Act, cannot be used for unjust enrichment of the consumer.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we deem lump sum of Rs. 12,000/- will be suffice to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in services and the harassment suffered by the complainant. The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, in case the same is not complied within stipulated period, the awarded amount of Rs. 12,000/- shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of order till realization

                        

 

 

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                                                             (Rekha Rani)

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT