Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/357

Bhagatdeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

American kool - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.santosh kumar adv

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/357 of 23.12.2014

                                      Decided on: 29.04.2015

 

 

Bhagatdeep Singh son of Sh.Gurdial Singh, resident of House No.7, Moti Bagh, Patiala.    

                                                                  ….Complainant

                                      Versus

1. American Kool Drinks, 4-A, Upper Mall, near Gurudwara Moti Bagh, Patiala through its Partner/Proprietor.
2. Videocon Service Centre, Opp.T.B.Hospital, Near Dr.Gupta Clinic, Aarti Complex, Patiala through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. Videocon Industries, Plot No.248, Udhyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director.
4. Videocon Industries Limited, SCO 80-82, IInd Floor, Sector 17B, Chandigarh-1670017 through its Managing Director.

                                                                   ….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                                  

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Santosh Kumar , Advocate

For Ops 2&3:                Ex-parte.                                          

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased  a Videocon 3D LED TV 55"-2055591PZ from op no.1, an authorized dealer of Videocon Limited for Rs.75000/- on 14.12.2013 vide bill No.04. Op no.1 had assured about the guarantee of the product for one year and that the same could be replaced in case of any defect.
2. When the complainant installed the LED at his house the same was not found working as there appeared  defect in the screen. At this the complainant approached Op no.1, who suggested to lodge the complaint with customer care of Videocon. Accordingly the complainant lodged the complaint with the customer care and a mechanic from op no.2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the LED and who disclosed that the kit of the LED had been damaged and was not working and therefore, the LED as a whole was liable to be replaced.The mechanic assured the replacement of the LED.
3. Again the complainant approached the customer care /grievance cell of the Videocon and made a request for the replacement of the Videocon LED but who put the matter off under  one or the other pretext .The complainant lodged the complaint through toll free number provided by Videocon company vide No.LUD-30066140173,response code 55893 on 30.6.2014 and another complaint No.LUD1907140017, response code 25685 on 19.7.2014 through customer care. At this Op no.2 had deputed a mechanic who checked the LED but the defect in the LED could not be rectified and every time the mechanic stated that the defect can not be removed and therefore, the LED is liable to be replaced . At this, the complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 8.12.2014 through registered post with a request to replace the LED within a period of 7 days from the date of the receipt of the legal notice but the Ops failed to replace the LED or to respond. Accordingly the complainant has  brought this complaint against the Ops  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to replace the LED with new one or to refund the price of Rs.75000/-; to pay him Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment, humiliation and mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.4000/- towards the expenses of the litigation.
4. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Ops no.2&3.On behalf of Op no.2 one Sh.Lakhwinder Chopra, Proprietor of Op no.2  appeared and on behalf of Op no.3 Sh.Sharad Sharma, authorized representative  appeared. Sh.Sharad Sharma had produced the copy of the authority letter dated 19.2.2015 executed by one Ummed Singh Bhuria, the holder of general power of attorney of Op no.3 but he failed to produce the copy of the GPA. The proceedings were adjourned to 2.3.2015 for the production of the same. However, on the next date, the said ops failed to appear in the proceedings and accordingly they were proceeded against exparte.
5. In the exparte evidence, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record on file.
7. Ex.C1 is the copy of retail invoice dated 14.12.2013 , vide which the complainant had purchased the Videocon LED 3D T.V. from Op no.1 for Rs.75000/-.Ex.C2 is the copy of the  complaint No.LUD3006140173 made by the complainant with the customer care of op no.3 on 30.6.2014.Ex.C3 is the copy of the complaint No.LUD1907140017 again made by the complainant with the customer care on 19.7.2014. Ex.C4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 8.12.2014 got sent by the complainant against the Ops through registered post, the postal receipts in this regard being Exs.C5 to C8.
8. From the exparte evidence  lead by the complainant, it would appear that he purchased Videon LED 3D TV 55"  from Op no.1 but the same had a problem in its working and therefore, the complainant had made the complaints with the customer care of Op no.3 vide complaints No.Ex.C2 dated 30.6.2014 and Ex.C3 dated 19.7.2014 and as per the sworn affidavit,Ex.CA of the complainant the mechanic having visited his house checked the LED and found that the panel kit of the LED  was damaged and who assured for the replacement of the same but despite the complainant having taken up the matter with the Ops , the same has not been replaced. The evidence lead by the complainant goes un rebutted. The Ops despite having caused their appearance have not chosen to contest the claim of the complainant. This also goes to show the in different attitude of the Ops in attending to the grievance of the complainant and the same also amounts to a deficiency of service on their part. We accordingly accept the complaint and direct Ops no.2&3 to rectify the defect, if any,  in the 3D LED 55" of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant by preparing a job sheet and by obtaining the satisfaction note on the same and in case the defect in the LED cannot be rectified to replace the same with new one with a requisite warranty regarding the balance period i.e. the warranty due after 30.6.2014 and in case that is not possible to refund the price of the LED i.e. Rs.75000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of the legal notice Ex.C4 dated 8.12.2014 till final payment. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.3000/-. The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:29.04.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                  Neelam Gupta                         D.R.Arora

          Member               Member                                   President