Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/176/2019

Usha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Refrigeration - Opp.Party(s)

Himanshu Aggarwal

22 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.176 of 2019

Date of Instt.:13.05.2019

Date of Decision:22.11.2021.

 

Usha Rani wife of Sh.R.D.Girdhar resident of house No.533, Sector -7, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1  Indian refrigeration works, Rajendra Colony near Eye Hospital,

    Kurukshetra through its authorized  Signatory/Proprietor/Manager/ In-

    charge as Authorise dealer of Sansui LED TV.

 

2. Sansui India (Registered Corporate Office Plot No.96, Udyog Vihar, near 

    Phase-2, Gurgaon- 122016.

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri Himanshu  Aggarwal Advocate for the complainant.   

OP No.1 and 2  ex-parte.

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Usha Rani  against Indian Refrigeration etc, the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is  the complainant has purchased one Sunsui LED TV No.SMC40FB17XKF for Rs.30,700/- from OP No.1 vide bill No.2805 dated 14.11.2015. The OP No.1 is seller of the said LED whereas  OP no.2 is manufacturer of the said LED TV. At the time of purchase of the LED, OP No.1 assured that there is no defect in the said LED and gave full warranty for 1 +2 additional years in all respects. It is further averred that on 30.05.2018, the  said LED stopped functioning. Then the complainant approached the OP No.1 and  the OP No.1 gave him toll free No. 018443940404  and the complainant made a complaint No.Id-GUR3005100180019 and the Ops deputed one Gurnam Singh who visited the house of the complainant and checked the said TV.  Said Gurnam Singh after checking the LED told the complainant that panel of the LED is defective and same would be replaced  within 10-15 days.  The complainant  waited for 20/25 days and then telephoned said mechanic who told that he has no knowledge and  has no knowledge when the working TV would be supplied by the company. He gave mobile No.70566-33605 of Mr. Sharad Sharma and asked the complainant to contact said person. The complainant contacted the said person but he did not care for the same and said  person further gave the mobile No.70650-22664 of one Manoj Shah and said Mr.Shah assured that new working TV would be supplied within seven days. The complainant waited for seven days and then contacted Mr.Shah who further gave mobile No.70650-22335 of Mr.Jitender  Arora (Sansui Sercvice Centre Head Haryana) and when the complainant contacted said Mr.Jitnder Arora,  he demanded Rs.15,000/-and further told that on payment of Rs.15,000/- he would supply the new working TV by hand.  The TV in question was having  one plus two years warranty and the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.15,000/- and the demand of Rs.15,000/- by the Ops and non repairing of the LED in question amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the TV in question with a new one or to refund Rs.30,700/- to the complainant along with compensation for the mental harassment caused to him  along with interest @ 18% etc.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the  Ops.  Ops were duly served upon but they  failed to appear and contest the case. Therefore, Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated  20.11.2019.

 

4.             The complainant in support of her case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and examined CW-1 and CW-2 and  closed his evidence.

 

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant has purchased one Sunsui LED TV No.SMC40FB17XKF for Rs.30,700/- from OP No.1 vide bill No.2805 dated 14.11.2015  Ex  C-1. The OP No.1 is seller of the said LED whereas OP no.2 is manufacturer of the said LED TV. At the time of purchase of the LED, OP No.1 assured that there is defect effect in the said LED and gave full warranty for three years in all respects. It is further argued that on 30.05.2018, the said LED stopped functioning. Then the complainant approached the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 gave him toll free No. 018443940404 and the complainant made a complaint No.Id-GUR3005100180019 and then the Ops deputed one Gurnam Singh who visited the house of the complainant and checked the said TV.  Said Gurnam Singh after checking the LED told the complainant that panel of the  LED is defective and same would be replaced  within 10-15 days.  The complainant  waited for 20/25 days and then telephoned said mechanic who told that he has no knowledge when the working TV would be supplied by the company. He gave mobile No.70566-33605 of Mr. Sharad Sharma and asked the complainant to contact said person. The complainant contacted the said person but he did not care for the same and said person further gave the mobile No.70650-22664 of one Manoj Shah and said Mr.Shah assured that new working TV would be supplied within seven days. The complainant waited for seven days and then contacted Mr.Shah who further gave mobile No.70650-22335 of Mr.Jitender  Arora (Sansui Sercvice Centre Head Haryana) and when the complainant contacted said Mr.Jitnder Arora,  he demanded Rs.15,000/-and further told that on payment of Rs.15,000/- he would supply the new working TV by hand.  The TV in question was having  one plus two years  extended warranty as shown in Mark “A” and the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.15,000/- and the demand of Rs.15,000/- by the Ops and non repairing of the LED in question amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

7.             From the version put forwarded  on behalf of the complainant it is established that  the complainant has purchased one Sunsui LED TV No.SMC40FB17XKF for Rs.30,700/- from OP No.1 vide bill No.2805 dated 14.11.2015  Ex  C-1. The OP No.1 is seller of the said LED whereas OP no.2 is manufacturer of the said LED TV. At the time of purchase of the LED, OP No.1 assured that there is defect effect in the said LED and gave full warranty for three years in all respects. It is further argued that on 30.05.2018, the said LED stopped functioning  within the warranty period as the LED in question was having one plus two (three years)warrant but the Ops could not rectify the defect. The fact regarding defect in the LED is duly proved from the statement of witness CW-2, who has admitted that the defect developed in the LED and he had deputed the mechanic to remove the same. This entire version of the complainant goes totally unrebutted and unchallenged and it is established that LED purchased by the complainant became defective during the warranty period and the Ops failed to remove the same.Further Ex.C-5 is the details of the calls made by the complainant to the Ops for removal of the defect in the LED but the Ops failed to remove the defect in the LED. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is duly proved and the complainant is entitled to refund  of 70% of the cost of the LED i.e. 70 % of  Rs.30700/- as shown in the bill Ex.C-1. and shall return the old product as the complainant has used the said LED for more than two years. The complainant shall also be entitled for compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund the  70 % of the sum of Rs.30,700/- (i.e.cost of the LED ) to the complainant. The Ops shall also pay a sum of 5000/-  in lum sump   to the complainant  as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and  the litigation expenses. The complainant is also directed to hand over the old product/LED to the Ops.  The Ops are further directed to make the compliance  of this order jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of the copy of this order, failing which the Ops shall be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties  as per rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the Open Commission

Dated: 22.11.2021.     

                                                                               President.

 

                                      Member         Member. .