Haryana

Kurukshetra

130/2016

Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindustan Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint No.130/16.

Date of instt.  11.5.16.

                                                Date of Decision 1.1.18.

 

Madan Lal son of Amar Nath, resident of village Kanpila Tehsil Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                        ……….Complainant.                             Vs.

 

1. Hindustan Electronics, Ambala Road, Pipli, Kurukshetra.
2. Branch Manager, Name of Importer-Victory Investment Limited Address of Impoter-205 Tower-B, Millennium Plaza, Sector-27, Gurgaon.
3. Branch Officer RS No.57/1, Rerasoor village Villianur commune Poundchery.

                                …………..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.       

 

Before                  Sh. G.C.Garg, President.

                           Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member,

                           Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member,

 

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Balbir Singh, Adv. for Op No. 1.

                 Ops No.2 & 3 ex parte.

ORDER

               

                    This is complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Madan Lal complainant against Hindustan Electronics, the opposite parties.

2.                 It is stated in the complaint that on 28.5.2014 the complainant purchased L.E.D. for a sum of Rs.23,500/-. The above said L.E.D. was having technical defect from the date of its purchase and the complainant informed the same to the OPs in this regard. The OP No.1 asked the complainant to contact the manufacturing company for removing the defect. The complainant made a telephonic call to the manufacturing company but nobody pay any heed. The complainant visited to the show room of OP No.1 several times and requested to replace the L.E.D.  but he flatly refused to replace it. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence this complaint moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the L.E.D. or to refund the price of the L.E.D. Rs.23,500/-. 

3.               OPs No.12 & 3 have failed to come present and as such, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16.6.2016.

4.             Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has concocted a false story and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the remaining contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.             Complainant has placed on record photo stat copy of cash memo, photo stat copy of request for repair of LED and photo stat copy of email. On the other hand, the OP No.1 did not lead any evidence.

6.             We have heard the complainant in person learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.            From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 28.5.2014 for the sale consideration of Rs.23,500/-. From the perusal of request for repair of LED it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Ops No.2 & 3, who are service center and manufacturer of the LED in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.2 & 2 to replace the LED of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties No.2 & 3.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :01.01.2018                             (G.C.Garg)

                                                           President,

                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                          Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)    (Smt. Viraj Pahil)

             Member                                  Member