Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 450.
Instituted on : 11.08.2021.
Decided on : 06.03.2023.
Surender Singh s/o Sh. Raghbir Singh R/o H.No.354 Gali No.1, Basant Vihar Rohtak, Haryana.
...................Complainant.
Versus
- Goel Enterprises shop no.7, Palika bazaar Rohtak through it Proprietor.
- Sansui Japanse Technology Sansui India, D-170, Pocket D, Okhla Phase 1, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110020 through its Manager.
- KAIL Limited Auto Cars Compound Adalat Road Aurangabad MH431005 through its Manager.
......................Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Dharmender Singh , Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that opposite party No.1 launched a scheme of company in the name of ‘Jitna do utna lo”. As per this scheme it was told that if a customer purchases any goods from the opposite party, then the opposite parties shall provide the goods of same amount to that customer free of cost after 4 years and 11 months. Complainant had purchased an L.E.D bearing model no.SMC40HB21C under the said scheme and the opposite party No.1 has tie-up with the opposite party No.2 & 3 for the said scheme. A certificate namely JDUL entitlement certificate bearing serial no.40SMC013522 dated 12.06.2016 was also issued in the name of complainant. Complainant had purchased the alleged L.E.D. on 12.06.2016 for Rs.27000/- having SI No.210316110287608820 with 5 years warranty. As per the certificate issued by the opposite parties, complainant was entitled to purchase any item of the company with rebate of Rs.20700/-. Complainant went to the opposite party No.1 on 10.01.2021 for purchase of items under the alleged scheme but the opposite party no.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and on 25.02.2021 refused to give any benefit of the scheme on the ground that the alleged certificate produced by the opposite party No.1 was fraud. Complainant contacted the opposite parties many times on their helpline numbers but to no effect. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.27000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties through registered post. But none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such opposite parties no.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.12.2021 of this Commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 on 20.12.2022 and also tendered amended affidavit Ex.Pw1/B and closed his evidence on dated 21.02.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the bill Ex.P1, complainant had purchased a Sansui LED for Rs.27000/- on 12.06.2016 from the opposite party No.1 with 5 years warranty. Opposite party no.1 also provided the certificate Ex.P2 dated 12.06.2016 to the complainant which is issued by opposite party No.2 & 3. As per this certificate i.e. JDUL Entitlement certificate, it is submitted that “ You are entitled to avail Rs.20700/- redemption on next purchase of any KAIL Limited product on completion of 4 years and 11 months from the date of current purchase, to be redeemed on www.sansui-india.com of the company and/or any other dealer/distributor/website/agent which would be introduced/informed on the official website www.sansui-india.com from time to time”. Hence from the alleged documents it is proved that under the scheme of “Jitna do utna lo” opposite parties offered the rebate of Rs.20700/- on purchase of any product of their company after 4 years 11 months. But after 4 years 11 months, when complainant contacted the opposite parties to avail the alleged benefit, the same was refused by the opposite parties. On the other hand opposite parties did not appear before this Commission despite service and were proceeded against exparte. As such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties of not providing the scheme benefit to the complainant stands proved and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.20700/- to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the alleged amount of Rs.20700/-(Rupees twenty thousand and seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.08.2021 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. 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:
06.03.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
