Haryana

Ambala

CC/111/2019

Prem Lata - Complainant(s)

Versus

GM Videocon - Opp.Party(s)

Nitasha Bansal

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 111 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution         :  08.04.2019.

                                                          Date of decision   : 22.07.2019.

 

Prem Lata, aged about 45 years, w/o Shri Dilbagh, r/o # 7821/4, Nadi Mohalla, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

 

 

1. The General Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd., 14 KM Stone, Palthan Road, Chite Gaon, Distt. Aurangabad-431105, Maharastra.
2. Arvind Electrical & Electronics, Prem Nagar, Ambala City through its Proprietor.  

     ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Ms. Alka Sharda, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs ex parte.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

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 ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective TV with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.46,000/-.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by her.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Hyundai LED TV Model TV-VMD55FH0ZFA, Chassis No.TVVMD55FH0ZFAP, vide bill/cash memo No.3086 dated 28.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.46,000/- from the OP No.2 with 1+2 years warranty for the mechanical/technical defect and 3 years for any kind of defect in the panel of the TV. On 28.12.2018, the said LED suddenly stopped working and in this regard, she immediately made a complaint to OP No.2, who sent an engineer to inspect the TV at her residence. After inspection, the said engineer repaired the TV and received Rs.1450/- from her. After 5 days, the TV again stopped working. She registered a complaint on customer care number of OP No.1. The engineer of OP No.2 told her that the defect of TV is not repairable as its panel has became defected. The said engineer also assured that he will update the OP No.1 with the defect of TV, who will replace the defected TV with new one as per warranty policy, but no nothing was done by the OP No.1 to resolve the grievance of the complainant\. She sent a notice dated 27.02.2019 to the OPs through counsel, but till today, neither the OPs considered her complaint nor replaced the TV with new one. By not rectifying the problem of the TV, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Separate registered notices were issued to OPs No.1 to 3, but none has turned up on their behalf, accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 29.05.2019.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the LED TV in question from the OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, vide invoice dated 28.06.2017 Annexure C-2. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 28.12.2018, the LED suddenly stopped working and on her complaint, the OP No.2 sent an engineer at her residence, who repaired the same and received Rs.1450/- from her vide cash receipt Annexure C-1. He further argued that after 5 days, the said TV again stopped working and the complainant registered a complaint on customer care number of OP No.1. The engineer of OP No.2 told the complainant that the defect of TV is not repairable, as its panel has become defected and assured that OP No.1 will replace the defected TV with new one as per warranty policy. However, neither the OPs considered her complaint nor replaced the TV with new one. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure C-5) vide postal receipts Annexure C-3 & C4. It may be stated here that none of the OPs have preferred to appear before this Forum and rebut the above said version of the complainant. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. Since the LED of the complainant got defective within warranty period and the OPs could not rectify the problem occurred in it, therefore, the OP No.1 being the manufacturer and OP No.2 being the seller, are liable to replace the said defective LED TV with the new one or to pay the value of the LED TV to the complainant. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her alongwith litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against OPs and direct them jointly and severally in the following manner:-

1. To replace the defective LED TV in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. If they are not in position to replace the same, then refund the amount of Rs.46,000/-, i.e. the price of the LED TV, alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 08.04.2019 i.e. the date of the filing of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :22.07.2019.

 

 

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

              Member                            Member                            President