BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

           Complaint Case No.    : 308 of 2013

Date of Institution       : 26.11.2013

             Date of Decision         : 13.04.2015

Krishna Murthy son of Sh. Sada Shivam resident of House No.A-188, Rail Vihar, NR DRM Office, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

Versus                                                                                            

1.         M/s Aerovision, 121-122-122-A, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt through its Prop.

2.         M/s Sharp Business System (India) Ltd. 214-221, Ansal Tower, 38 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

                                                                                                ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANSUYA BISHNOI, MEMBER.                       

Present:          Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1 exparte.

                        Sh. B.B. Sehgal, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.                       

ORDER.

1.                     Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he purchased one 32” LED 430 Sharp LED vide invoice No.S-ACA-2817/12-13 dated 03.02.2013 for Rs.28,500/- from OP No.1 which became defective in the month of April 2013 and a complaint vide No.305577 dated 29.04.2013 was registered  with Op No.2 and again a telephonic complaint was also made to the OP No.2 who assured for personal visit but none came.  At last, on verbal request of the complainant to OP No.1, a mechanic was sent who after checking,  failed to do the needful.  The complainant further alleged that after spending huge amount,  he is not getting proper use of the same and is deprived of the facilities for himself and his family members.  Thus the complainant has submitted that  the OPs are negligent and deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Having no alternative, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking relief as per prayer para.

2.                     Notices were sent to the Ops.  OP No.1 did not bother to appear despite service of registered notice. As such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.01.2014.  OP No.2 filed written statement raising  preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint  as the OP company has no liability of replace or repair,  in case of mishandling of a product.  On merits, it has been  admitted that the complainant had purchased 32” LED bearing Model No.430 manufactured by them. Further it has been submitted that the complaint lodged by the complainant was duly disposed off as there was absolutely no manufacturing defect in the LED set nor was the defect that had occurred under the terms of warranty. In fact, the LED set had broken down due to fall on the ground or due to impact of heavy goods put on the said LED which is gross negligence and mishandling on the part of the complainant, therefore, in either of the cases, the complainant is at fault and any defect that had taken place due to such mishandling, OP No.2 company is not liable for that. Hence, a prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence, the complainant tendered affidavit Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit  of Ankit Sharma, authorized signatory of Op No.2 as Annexure RX and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.2.

4.                We have heard the complainant as well as counsel for the OP No.2 and gone through the case file very carefully.  The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the LED in question from the OP No.1 on 03.02.2013 in a sum of  Rs.28500/- and  LED became defective and complaint thereof was made on 29.04.2013 vide No.305577 to OP No.2 but no person from the Ops came to remove the defect from the LED.  After 29.04.2013, the OP No.1 sent his Mechanic for repair of the LED but he failed to remove the defect.  Hence, having no solution from Ops, complainant filed the present complaint.                    

                   On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that the complainant is himself guilty of violating the terms & conditions of the warranty as he mishandled the LED and as such there is no liability upon the OP No.2  to repair or replace the said LED.  On the complaint of complainant,  the LED was checked by their Mechanic and found that  the same was in broken condition, probably it might have fallen on ground or it had been kept under some heavy goods and thus argued that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.                After hearing complainant  as well as counsel for the OP No.2 and going through the record, it is crystal clear from document Annexure C-1 that the LED in question was sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant on 03.02.2013 and the same became defective within the warranty period but despite repeated complaints and requests, the same was not rectified by the Ops.   The plea taken by the Op No.2 that the LED in question might have fallen on the ground or it was kept under some heave goods is not sustainable as no any evidence either documentary or oral or any document or report has been placed on file by the OP No.2 wherefrom the version of OP No.2 is proved.  Moreover, no any affidavit of any mechanic/engineer of Ops has been placed on the file wherefrom it is proved that the LED was mis-handed by the complainant.  Mere to say that the LED was mishandled by the complainant or the complainant has violated the terms and condition of the warranty clause is not believable.  Hence, the submission put forth by the Ops is not trustworthy rather without any  basis whereas the version advanced by the  complainant is believable and as such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service committed by OP No.2 with the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and OP No.2 is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To replace the LED in question of the same Model  with new one and if same Model is not available, then to refund  the cost of LED i.e. Rs.28500/- (as mentioned in the invoice No.S-ACA-2817/12-13 dated 03.02.2013) alongwith simple interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs etc.

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPNo.2  within a stipulated period failing which the aforesaid awarded amounts  shall further attract interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above term. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

                                                                                                Sd/-

Announced in open Court.13.4.15                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                  PRESIDENT            

                                                                                                  Sd/-

               (ANSUYA BISHNOI)

                                                                                              MEMBER

                                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                                  

                                                                                        (S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                            MEMBER