Haryana

Ambala

CC/301/2018

Kulvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 301 of 2018

                                                                      Date of Institution         : 07.09.2018                                                                           

                                                                     Date of decision    :  30.01.2019

 

 

Kulvinder Kaur wife of Shri Harjinder Singh Hari, resident of village Ugara, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.

    ……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Index Technologies (I) Ltd, A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi, through its Regional Manager/authorized signatory.  

2.  Bhuvan Marketing (Distributor Intex) Naraingarh Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City through its Prop/authorized signatory.

3.  M/s Japan Electronics, shop No.78-A, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt through its Proprietor.

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member

                   Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

                            

Present:        Sh. Harjinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

 Op already exparte v.o.d 29.10.2018.

 

 

As per:- D.N.ARORA PRESIDENT

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a LED 50 Inch for Rs. 45,000/- from OP No.3 manufactured by the OP No.1 vide Bill No.2515 dated 31.10.2016 with five year warranty. After installation of LED at the house of the complainant, the LED was not working properly and screen went partially black. The complainant informed the Op and requested to change the same with the new, but the Op No.3 told the complainant to make a complaint a Toll Free Number 1860 208 5555. The complainant make a complaint at toll free number and thereafter checked the LED and stated to the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the LED and the same cannot be removed by repairing it. Thereafter, the complainant again contacted the OP No.3 and further requested to change the same with new one, but the Op went on putting off the complainant with one excuse or other. Then the complainant moved a complaint against the Op No.3 before the police, but no avail. On the OP No.3 assured the complainant that it would be changed by the Distributor i.e Op No.3 but no fruitful result came. Because of the negligent attitude of the OPs, the complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss which is a clear cut deficiency in the service on the part of the OPs as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops but none has turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.10.2018.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A  alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. OPs have proceeded against ex parte v.o.d. 29.10.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel of the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased a LED 50 Inch for Rs. 45,000/- vide Bill No.2515 dated 31.10.2016 Annexure C-1 from OP No.3 and manufactured by the OP No.1 and the same was having three year warranty as Annexure Mark A placed on the file at the time of arguments i.e three Photographs of Intex LED, three year warranty card and bar codes. The complainant with this plea that the LED in question not working properly and screen went partially black and the complainant informed the Op requested to change the same with the new, but the Op No.3 has not short not his grievance. To prove defects LED in question complainant moved an application for inspection of the LED in question and same was allowed by this Forum v.o.d. 13.09.2018 and again was directed on 29.10.2018 and the Principal of Govt. Polytechnic, Ambala City was order to appoint an Expert person dealing with the problems of the LED in question. Accordingly, Sh. Inderjit Dhindsa, was appointed as Local Commissioner who tendered his report on 19.11.2018 whereby he has pointed out that:

 “After inspection it was found that the LED TV is not working properly. The LED TV was investigated for any physical damage. However, No physical damage was came to the notice of the undersigned. Up on switching the power supply there was no visual output and only vertical lines of different colours are displayed. It seems that there is some manufacturing defect in the panel of the LED internally due to which the liquid had leaked, as a result of which the screen is damaged”.

 

                    On the other hand, OPs already proceeded against exparte   v.o.d. 29.10.2018. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and also corroborated with the LC report which is un-rebutted thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant. It is also clear from the LC report the LED in question there is no physical damage and LC further point out that upon switching the power supply there was no visual output only vertical lines of different colours are displayed. It seems that there is some manufacturing defect in the panel of the LED internally due to which the liquid had leaked as a result of which the screen is damaged. The abovesaid defect has been occurred within warranty period of the LED.  So this Forum has no option to replace LED in question because such type of the defects are not repairable and it is a crystal clear case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops No. 1 & 3 and they have sold the defective LED to the complainant. There is no role of Op No.2 being distributor. Hence the complaint against Op No.2 is hereby dismissed.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with cost which is assessed Rs.3,000/- and Ops No. 1 and 3 (being a dealer and manufacturer) are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      The Ops No. 1 & 3 are directed to replace the LED in question with new one of the same Model of the same price and if the same model is not available then to refund the cost of the LED to the tune of Rs.45,000/- as per invoice(Annexure C-1) within 30 days after receiving copy of the order failing which OP will  pay the interest  at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization, subject to return the old LED either to the OP No.1 or OP No.3.   

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :30.01.2019

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (DR.SUSHMA GARG) (D.N. ARORA)              Member                          Member                             President