Punjab

Sangrur

CC/449/2016

Malkeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Neeraj Kalra

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                          

                                                Complaint No.  449

                                                Instituted on:    13.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.10.2016

 

Malkeet Singh son of Hardev Singh, resident of House No.1004, Preet Colony, Bhawanigarh.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Intex Technologies Corporate Private Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi.

2.             M/s.Ahuja Electronics, Gaushala Road, Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Neraj Kalra, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Malkeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one LED   from OP number 2  on 23.10.2014 for Rs.30,000/- vide invoice number 879 dated 23.10.2014 with three years warranty of the LED against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that after purchase of the LED he used the same and the LED suffered manufacturing defect in the month of April, 2016, as it stopped working.  The complainant immediately approached OP number 2, who told that it is the duty of the OP number 1, who has to remove the defect or to replace the LED.  Further case of the complainant is that he also approached OP number 2 through email, but the OP number 2 replied to the complainant that the warranty/guarantee of the LED has been expired and for repair of the same, he had to pay Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- for changing the penal of the LED.  The complainant has alleged that the OPs are bound to set right the LED free of cost, but nothing happened despite the fact the complainant approached the Ops so many times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to change the panel of the LED or give the new LED or refund its price along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OPs did not appear despite service, as such OPs were proceeded exparte on 26.08.2016.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C-4 copy of service sheet, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 copies of photographs, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 postal receipts and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.               Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 2 to the complainant for sale of the LED in question for Rs.30,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the LED in question and availed the services of the OP number 2, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.

 

5.             After carefully perusal of the case file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that in the present case, the complainant has alleged that he purchased the LED in question on 23.10.2014 and the same developed defects in the month of April, 2016 as the LED in question stopped to work.  The complainant has alleged that the LED in question was having three years warranty/guarantee.  But, to support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has not produced any document to show that the LED in question was having three years warranty/guarantee.  Moreover, the complainant has produced on record the warranty card of the LED in question, wherein it has been stated that “warranty service  against manufacturing defects in Intex LED TV upto 1 year from the date of first sale of the product to the end-customer”, meaning thereby the LED in question was having one year warranty, which has already been expired on 23.10.2015, whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 13.7.2016 i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence to show that the warranty of the LED was for three years. 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 20, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member