Haryana

Ambala

CC/47/2020

Vijay Vikrant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arvind Electricals and Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     47 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :     07.02.2020

                                                          Date of decision    :     08.09.2022.

Vijay Vikrant son of Shri (Doctor) Jai Kishan, aged about 38 years, resident of House No:- 1173, Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ambala City, Haryana

                                                                                      ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Arvind Electricals and Electronics, Prem Nagar, Ambala City-Haryana, through Its Prop. / Authorised signatory.
2. Videocon Service Centre, Near Tulsi Mobile, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt Haryana, through its authorised signatory/ representative.
3. Videocon Industries Limited, Regd. Office Videocon Industries Ltd, 14 kms, Stone Aurangabad Paithan Road, Chitegaon, District Aurangabad 431 105- Maharashtra.

                                                                                  ….….Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.            

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 already ex parte.      

                   None for OP No.2.

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i)To replace the defective LED with a new one, without any delay, being the same in warranty period.

ii) To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

                                      OR

Grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit and proper.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that on 21-11-2016 -vide cash vide Invoice No. 5393 on dated 21-11-2016. the complainant purchased a LED Videocon, Model 43FH1IFA, Chassis No 111016110161309451 from OP No.1 for his personal use, on making payment of Rs.35,000/-. At the time of purchase of the said LED, OP No.1 showed various rosy pictures to the complainant and also issued the warranty card of the said LED for five years and assured that it will be responsible for any defect therein, within the said warranty period.  All of a sudden, during the month of July 2019, the said LED became non-functional as there was no picture and voice therein. The complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 on toll free number & also to OP No.1. The representative of OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and inspected the LED and reported that its panel is not working and it requires replacement. After some time, the representative of OP No.1 informed the complainant that since LED model in question is no more in existence, as such, its panel cannot be repaired and thus, for replacement of said panel, he has to pay an amount of Rs.9000/- to Rs.10,000/-. On this, the complainant reported the matter to OPs No.1 to 3 that since the LED in question is in warranty period, as such, the panel be replaced and that too free of cost, but to no avail. However, when the complainant inquired about rectification of the said defect from the local mechanic, he told that the LED can be repaired easily. Thus, by seeking payment of Rs.9000/- to Rs.10,000/- for defect rectification, despite the fact that the LED in question was within the warranty period, the OPs adopted unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of the OPs No.1 and 3, as a result of which, they were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 30.11.2021 and 26.08.2021, respectively.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version stating therein that it has no concern with Videocon Service Centre and is working under Blackmelon Advance Technology (P) Ltd and prayed for deleting its name from the array of opposite parties.
5.           The complainant has tendered his affidavit, as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on his behalf.
6.           The OP No.2 has failed to tender its evidence, and the same was closed vide order dated 29.07.2022.
7.           We have gone through the case file carefully.
8.           It is significant to mention here that neither on the date of arguments nor earlier on some dates, either complainant or OP No.2 were putting their appearance before this Commission and on the other hand. OPs No.1 and 3, had already been proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 30.11.2021 and 26.08.2021, respectively. Under these circumstances, this Commission decided to proceed further, by relying upon the documents on record, in view of Section 38 (3) (c) of CPA 2019, which says that the District Commission can proceed with the complaint on merits, if the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing.
9.           To prove his case that in the year 2019 defect arose in the LED in question which was purchased by the complainant vide invoice dated 21.11.2016, Annexure C-1 for an amount of Rs.35,000/-, which carried a warranty of 5 years (4 +1) as is evident from warranty terms and conditions, Annexure C-2,  the complainant has placed on record emails dated 28.09.2019, Annexure C-3 and 30.08.2019 & 03.09.2019, Annexure C-5 colly. having been written to the OPs No.1 and 3 informing that the LED in question is not working and that since it is warranty period, as  such, he is not liable to pay any charges towards replacement of defective panel thereof. It is coming out from the record that thereafter also, lot of emails were exchanged between the parties for the period from 04.09.2019 to 28.09.2019, Annexure C-6 and Annexure C-7 colly., yet there is nothing on record that the grievance of the complainant with regard to defective LED was redressed either by OP No.1 or by OP No.3.            
10.           As stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OPs No.1 and 3 also, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3, despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide orders 30.11.2021 and 26.08.2021, respectively. This act of the OPs No.1 and 3 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OPs No.1 and 3 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant, which stood proved by him by way of placing the record of emails, referred to above. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted by OPs No.1 and 3 and thus they are held liable for deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice.
11.           As far as OP No.2 is concerned, it may be stated here that the plea of OP No.2 is that it has no concern with Videocon Service Centre and it is working under Blackmelon Advance Technology Co. (P) Ltd.  Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove any privity of contract with it (OP No.2). Under these circumstances, it is held that though OP No.2 has not tendered its affidavit, yet, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play, complaint against it, is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
12.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against the OPs No.1 and 3. The OPs No.1 and 3 jointly and severally are directed as under: -
    1. To replace the said defective LED with a new one or in failure to provide the LED of the same make and model, in that eventuality, they shall refund the amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.35,000/-, after deducting 15% of depreciation amount (as the LED has been used for more than 3 years) i.e. Rs.29750/-.
    2. To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

                   OPs No.1 and 3 are further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same, failing which the amount mentioned in para No.12 (a & b) shall carry interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of default till realization. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Announced on: 08.09.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President