Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/51/2020

Pradeep Rattan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Infinity Retail Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Karamveer Singh

04 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	51/2020
Date of Institution	:	24.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	04/03/2022

 

                     

            

 

Pradeep Rattan aged 48 r/o H.No.2414, Guru Har Rai Complex, Sector 67 SAS Nagar, Mohali-160062 (Pb.).

…..Complainant

Versus

1 . Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma, a Tata Enterprise) through its Store Manager, Address: SCO No.57, Sector 26, Chandigarh -160019.

 

2.  Videocon Industries Ltd., through its Managing Director, Address: Plot No.248, Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, Gurugram-122105, Haryana.

…. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant Defence of OP No.1 already struck off. OP No.2 exparte.

   

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that on 25.07.2015 he purchased a TV make Videocon from OP No.1 having warranty of five years with extended warranty of one year on payment of Rs.899/-. On 05.11.2019, he started facing some technical problem in the TV and lodged the complaint with OP No.1 but to no effect. Thereafter he enquired from OP NO.1 regarding the service request who informed that OP No.2 i.e. the manufacturing company of the product had closed down and showed inability to rectify the defect but in lieu thereof, OP No.1 offered to buy back the TV at 10% of the original retail price of the TV despite covered under warranty. It has further been averred that he made various representations to the OPs to repair the TV but all in vain. Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 23.12.2019 through e-mail upon the OPs which also failed to yield any result. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.  
2.         Despite due service through publication, OP No.2 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.12.2021.
3.     Defence of OP No.1 was struck off vide order dated 30.12.2021 as they have failed to file the written statement and evidence by way of affidavit despite availing repeated opportunities.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.     The whole evidence placed on record by the complainant corroborates the assertions set out in the present complaint. Annexure C-2 shows that the TV in question was covered under warranty of 5 years + 1 year extended warranty.  Annexure C-3 is copy of the service request made by the complainant with the OPs on 05.11.2019. Annexure C-4 is the copy of the legal notice served upon the OPs. The perusal of the record shows that the TV in question started giving problems within the warranty period and the Company has closed down its company, therefore, no purpose would be served by directing the OPs to effect the repairs on the TV in question. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice would be served by directing the OPs to refund the price of the product in question to the complainant.

6.       The complainant has duly proved the case by way of corroborative evidence and also filed duly sworn affidavit in support of the allegations set-out in the complaint, which goes unrebutted and unopposed in the absence of the OPs.

7.       It is observed that OPs did not come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served, which raises a reasonable presumption that the OPs have failed to render due promised services to the complainant. 

8.       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs:-

a]   To refund the price of the TV in question i.e. Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.

[b]  To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and physical harassment complaint.

[c]  To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.

9.       This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(a) and (b) from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.

10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

                    Sd/-             sd/-

Announced	(B.M.SHARMA)		(PRITI MALHOTRA)
04/03/2022	MEMBER		PRESIDING MEMBER

cmg