Delhi

North East

CC/4/2019

Sandeep Kumar Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arpit Enterprises & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 04/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri  Sandeep Kumar Rai S/o Shri Sachchidanand Rai, R/o E-7/3, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094 Also At:- B-01, GF Plot No. 639, Shalimar Garden Extn., I, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP 201005	Complainant
	Versus
	Philips India Ltd., Registered Office at: 3rd Floor, Tower A, DLF IT Park, 08 Block AF Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat) Kolkata West Bengal-700156   Also At: Corporate Office: 8th Floor, DLF 9 B, DLF Cyber City, Sector 25, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002	Opposite Party

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

09.01.19 06.03.23 19.07.23.

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased led tv on 09.11.15 bearing model no. LED Philips 32-32PFL5039/V7 from dealership of Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 20,300/- having invoice no. 138 dated 09.11.15. The Complainant stated that said tv was not satisfactory as Complainant saw vertical line in the screen and lodged complaint at service centre of Opposite Party vide complaint no. GHA2408180199 dated 24.08.18. The Complainant stated that on 25.08.15 technician of Opposite Party visited Complainant place and he found that led tv panel was not working properly and same had to replace because led tv is under warranty. The Complainant stated that he made various phone calls to Opposite Party in respect of complaint lodged by him for the tv in question but of no use. On 19.12.18 Complainant made another call to Opposite Party but Opposite Party denied for any service and made no efforts to rectify the said faults in tv in question. On 26.11.18 Complainant sent notice/written complaint to Opposite Party via speed post wherein Opposite Party was directed to resolve the complaint dated 24.08.18 within 15 days and the same was delivered to office of Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not provide any service to rectify the faults in the tv in question. The Complainant stated that the said tv has warranty of 5 years i.e. 09.11.15 to 08.11.20 and Opposite Party did not rectify the faults in said tv despite having the warranty. Hence this shows deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for the cost of the tv of Rs. 20,300/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 18 % p.a.  He further prayed for Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.  
2. The Opposite Party did not file any written statement nor led any evidence. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

3. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a tv on 09.11.15 manufactured by Opposite Party. The said tv has warranty for 5 years. After about more than 2 years the Complainant observed that the said tv was not working satisfactorily and he made complaint on 24.08.18. The technician of the Opposite Party visited the Complainant’s house and stated that the led panel was not working properly. It is the case of the Complainant that as per the terms of the warranty his tv was required to be replaced. The case of the Complainant is that nothing was done by the Opposite Party on his complaint. The Opposite Party did not file any written statement nor led any evidence during the proceedings an application was made by the Opposite Party for settlement of the complaint for a total sum of Rs. 16,448/-. The Complainant has proved his case by leading evidence. The Opposite Party did not file any written statement nor led any evidence. Therefore, the assertions made in the complaint are to be believed. The complaint is allowed.  The Complainant has purchased the tv for a sum of Rs. 20,300/- and the said tv has a warranty for five years. The Complainant has used the said tv for more than two and half years. Therefore, the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
4. Order announced on 19.07.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        (Member)

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) (President)