Punjab

Sangrur

CC/607/2019

Ashwani Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Aggarwal

12 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 607

 Instituted on:   26.11.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     12.04.2021

 

Ashwani  Singla son of Sh. Jaswant Singla, resident of Basant Vihar, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Intex Technologies (I) Ltd. A 61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi 110020 India through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s. Radha Enterprises, Old Anaj Mandi, Dhuri 148024 through its Proprietor.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   : Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.              

        For the OPs                        : Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

FACTS

1.             Shri Ashwani Singla,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant purchased one 43 Inch LED TV of Intex company from the OP number 2 on 14.1.2017 for Rs.27000/- vide bill number 4340 dated 14.1.2017 and the OP number 3 sold this product with three years warranty and sticker to this effect was also on the LED, but in the warranty book the warranty was mentioned for one year.  The complainant has further averred that this fact was brought to the notice of the OP number 2 then it was assured that the warranty was/is three years.  Further case of the complainant is that the LED TV stopped working and the complainant intimated it to the OP number 2 about the said defect. The OP number 2 lodged a complaint  with the care centre of the OP number 1 and sent mechanic who took the LED with them to repair the same and charged Rs.500/- as service charges, but the OP number 1 did not issue any receipt against the said charges.  Further case of the complainant is that after fifteen days, the said mechanic returned the LED after repairing the same, but it again worked for 2/3 days.  The complainant again brought the said fact in the knowledge of the OPs, the OPs assured that the LED would be repaired, but they did not sent any mechanic to set right the same.  It is further averred that the LED in question is suffering from manufacturing defect, so the OPs are not repairing the same.  The case of the complainant is that he approached the OPs so many times for repair/replacement of the LED in question, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the above said LED with new one or the Ops be directed to refund its price along with interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and further to pay Rs.22,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the OPs did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against exparte.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased one 43 Inch LED TV of Intex company from the OP number 2 on 14.1.2017 for Rs.27000/- vide bill number 4340 dated 14.1.2017 and the OP number 3 sold this product with three years warranty and sticker to this effect was also affixed on the top of the LED, but in the warranty book the warranty was mentioned for one year.  The complainant has further argued that this fact was also brought to the notice of the OP number 2 then it was assured that the warranty was/is three years.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the LED TV stopped working and the complainant intimated it to the OP number 2 about the said defect. The OP number 2 lodged a complaint  with the care centre of the OP number 1 and sent mechanic who took the LED with them to repair the same and charged Rs.500/- as service charges, but the OP number 1 did not issue any receipt against the said charges.  Further the learned counsel has argued that after fifteen days, the said mechanic returned the LED after repairing the same, but it again worked for 2/3 days.  The complainant again brought the said fact in the knowledge of the OPs, the OPs assured that the LED would be repaired, but they did not sent any mechanic to set right the same.  It is further argued that the LED in question is suffering from manufacturing defect, so the OPs are not repairing the same.  The case of the complainant is that he approached the OPs so many times for repair/replacement of the LED in question, but all in vain. As such, the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

5.             Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of the complainant wherein he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 is the bill number 4340 dated 141.2017 of the LED in question, Ex.C-4 is the photo showing that the LED in question is having three years warranty, Ex.C-5 is the affidavit of Kulwant Singh who repairs LED TV etc. and has stated that the panel of the LED TV got defective and the same is not repairable and the panel is required to be replaced with the new one.  In the LED, the said panel is the vital part and it makes the LED TV in working.  As such, we find that the LED TV in question is suffering from manufacturing defects in the panel and the LED TV works with the panel.   In the circumstances, the complainant has successfully proved on record that the LED TV in question is defective one, which requires to be replaced with a new one. It is worth mentioning here that the OPs chose to remain exparte. 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to replace the defective LED TV with a new one.    We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. This order be complied with within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        April 12, 2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President