Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 498.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 12.10.2018.

                                                                   Decided on       : 26.02.2019.

Ravi Jain s/o Sh. Ram Chander Jain, Age 29 years, R/o H.No.72/9, Gali no.12, Patram Nagar Narwana, Distt. Jind(Hr.)126116.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Goel Enterprises, Shop no..,, Palika Bazar, Rohtak through Proprietor.
2. Jagdamba Service Centre, Canal Road, Near Jain Cycle Store,  Narwana, Distt. Jind-126116 through Proprietor Sanjay Sharma.
3. Phillips India Ltd., 8^th Floor, DLF 9-B, DLF Cyber City, Sector-25, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR.RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person..

                   Opposite parties exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased an LED 40” from the respondent no.1 for a sum of Rs.30000/- vide bill no.18909 dated 07.11.2015 with 5 yeas warranty. That  in August 2018 the display of the LED was not working and the complainant contacted telephonically to the company and registered a complaint no.GUR1008180092 and the agent of the company picked up the LED from the house of the complainant  and on the  next day he told that the panel of the LED has been damaged and the same is not available in service centre and asked the complainant to contact the Area Manager. That complainant contacted the Area Manager  and  the Area Manager told the complainant that the Panel will not repair, rather the LED will be changed within 20 days. That the complainant is regularly approaching the opposite parties but they have refused to return the LED of the complainant under one pretext or the other and no satisfactory reply has been given by the opposite parties so far. That the act of opposite parties of not replacing the LED of the complainant within warranty period is  illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the LED of the complainant with new one or to refund the price of Rs.30000/- alongwith compensation and litigation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. OPs No. 1 and 3 failed to appear before the court despite due service, hence, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.11.2018 of this Forum. Notice sent to OP No. 2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence OP no.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.01.2019 of this Forum.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and also tendered documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 in additional evidence closed his exparte evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the LED in question on 07.11.2015 and the same was having 5 years warranty. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, and documents placed on record by the complainant Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 the defect in the LED appeared  in August 2018 within warranty period and the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get his LED repaired/replaced but the opposite parties have neither repaired the LED, nor replaced the same and also not refunded the price of LED. The LED in question is still in the custody of opposite parties. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not repairing/replacing the defective LED stands proved.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of LED in question after deduction of depreciation of 20% on it as the complainant has used the LED in question uninterruptedly for 3 years.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.24000/-(Rupees twenty four thousand only) towards cost of LED  alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.10.2018 till its realization and shall also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

26.02.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.