Delhi

North East

CC/183/2021

PRAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

INTEX TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.183/21

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Jatan Singh R/o A-146, Street No.01,Nehru Vihar Sherpur Chowk, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-110094		Complainant
	Versus
	Intex Technologies(I) Ltd. A-61, Turn Road, Okhla Phase II Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110020	Opposite Party

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

02.12.21 19.12.22 08.02.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

                                                                    ORDER

            Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he purchased an LED android TV model No. LEDSF4304 serial no. 2112533031184303778 for a sum of Rs. 26,499/- on 05.11.18 with service/repairing warranty of 3 years from date of purchase. On 30.06.21 complainant lodged a complaint on costumer care no. of Opposite Party for rectification of issue of not working of display and not showing of you tube channel and the complaint was registered vide registration no. B063090010183. The complainant submitted that he was attended by Opposite Party  with a service charge of Rs. 590/- vide receipt no. 1497 and after checking of TV by service engineer of Opposite Party it was informed that it has to be sent to service centre and TV in question was collected by service centre against complaint no.B063090010183 dated 30.06.21. On 05.07.21 service centre returned the TV in question the issue of display was rectified but it was not showing you tube channel therefore complainant lodged another complaint vide complaint no. B81490010184 dated 14.08.21. The complainant submitted that on 30.08.21 he lodged another complaint for not working of display and for not showing you tube channel and the complainant received complaint registration no. B083090010455 and complainant was charged Rs. 590/- vide receipt no. 1908 and an engineer visited house of complainant and aft inspection engineer mentioned that TV need to be repaired at service centre of Opposite Party  company. On 30.08.21 the service centre collected TV and returned after two months without rectification of fault and display was replaced with some other old TV and body of TV was not fitted properly so complainant lodged another complaint on 02.11.21 and on 03.11.21 engineer checked TV and mentioned that TV would only be repaired at service centre of Opposite Party. After inspection of TV, complainant has registered several complaints for collection of TV but neither TV in question was taken nor any satisfactory response was given by Opposite Party. The complainant availed the service/repairing warranty of TV for 3 years from date of purchase i.e. 05.11.18. The complainant submitted his last complaint within warranty period on 02.11.21 which was not attended on time deliberately. The complainant stated that service centre of Opposite Party hold TV at their end for two months from 04.09.21 to 28.10.21 without any reason and returned TV without any rectification in order to get warranty period be expired. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to replaced the TV in question with new LED Android TV and other expenditure including internet charges for 5 months @ 500/- per month may kindly be returned.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice on 06.04.22. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.22.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay the cost of TV i.e. 26,499/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges.  
6. Order announced on 09.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President