Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/72/2017

Tahira - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jit Marketings - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K.Garg

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 72 of 2017

                                           Date of institution :  07.11.2017                            

                                           Date of decision    :  14.09.2018

Tahira W/o Sh. Manik Raj r/o House No.1315, Sector 27, Block-A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Jit Marketingss, Amloh road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Micromax Informatics Limited, Micromax House 90/B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Pin Code No.122015.
3. M/s Jai Durga Electronics, SCO No.104, First Floor, City Market, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula-Pinjore Highway, Pinjore, Haryana.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.      

Quorum

 Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                   

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :  Sh. S.K.Garg, Adv.Cl for complainant.

               Opposite party No.1 exparte.

               None for OP No.2.

               Opposite party No.3 exparte.

                                 

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                 Complainant, Tahira W/o Sh. Manik Raj r/o House No.1315, Sector 27, Block-A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased Micromax LED TV having Md No.50K2330UHD, SIN-00038B350128294 from OP No.1 through cash Memo No.525 dated 14.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.51,000/-. At the time of purchase of said LED TV, OP No.1, being authorized dealer of OP No.2(Manufacturer), assured that if there will be any manufacturing defect or if any defect occurred in the said LED TV, then the same shall be replaced by the OPs with new one within guarantee period i.e. one year. During the operation of said LED TV at her home, the complainant found some manufacturing defect in the said LED TV Panel as the same was not showing clear picture and was showing black dots in its screen. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of OPs many a times and they assured that the LED TV will be rectified or replaced with new one but they failed to do so. The complainant also lodged a complaint on Customer Care toll free number, which was registered vide reference No.HP-020817-1557088 on 02.08.2017 and it was assured that the complaint will be attended by OP No.3(service centre) but OPs failed to provide their services, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Then after making so many calls on 20.08.2017, the representative of the OPs through OP No.3 visited the house of the complainant. They opened the LED and damaged the WIFI system of the said LED. Thereafter they left the house of the complainant with the assurance that they will come back on 22.08.2017. Then on 22.08.2017, the representatives again visited the house of the complainant and took the said LED with them with an assurance that the same will be delivered back after repair on the same date. But they never came back till date.  The complainant so many times requested the OPs to resolve the matter, but they failed to do so. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay  Rs.51,000/- i.e. price of LED and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

3.              Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OPs No.1 and 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.

4.              OP No.2 appeared through counsel Sh. K.S.Noorie and filed the reply. In reply to complaint OP No.2 stated that there is no defect/manufacturing defect in the LED TV in question. The complainant failed to produce any documentary proof/evidence to establish any alleged defect thereof. The defect, if any, in the LED TV in question cannot be determined without proper analysis/test of the same. In the absence of any test report, it may be assumed that LED TV does not have any defect. It is further stated the LED TV is electronic device and is subject to limited warranty and does not include any damage due to ordinary wear and tear.  The OPs cannot be held responsible for any damage caused due to complainant's own fault. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.              In order to prove his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1 along with documents Ex. C-2 to C-24 and closed the evidence.  OP No.2 failed to produce any evidence on record and the Ld. counsel appearing for OP No.2 also plead no instructions to appear on behalf of OP No.2. Hence, the evidence of OP No.2 was closed by order.

6.              Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the LED TV in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1( Manufactured by OP No.2).  After installation at the house of the complainant, the LED TV in question did not work well i.e. It started showing black dots in its screen and the picture was also not clear. The Ld. counsel further argued that there was a manufacturing defect in the said LED TV. The complainant lodged complaint with the OPs, issued reminders, made telephone calls etc, but OPs did nothing to redress the grievance of the complainant. After a telephonic call on 20.08.2017, representatives of OP No.3( Service Centre) came to the house of complainant, opened the LED TV and left after damaging the WIFI System of the said LED TV. Again on 22.08.2017, the representatives of OP No.3 visited the house of complainant and took away the LED TV for repair which till date has not been returned by them. Ld. counsel further prayed for acceptance of complaint with a direction to OP No.2 to replace the said defective LED TV with a new one or refund Rs.51,000/-, the cost of LED TV beside adequate compensation and litigation charges.

7.              We have gone through the written arguments, evidence placed on record and heard oral submissions of the Ld. counsel. We find force in the submissions of Ld. counsel for the complainant. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct OP No.2 to get the LED TV checked up from a recognized service centre and if it is found to be reparable, get it repaired (even if some part is required to be changed, change the same) free of cost. If a manufacturing defect is detected, then change the said defective LED TV with a new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order or refund Rs.51,000/-, the cost of LED TV alongwith interest @ 8% from the date of lodging of first complaint with the OPs till realization.  Complainant is also held entitled to Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc together with litigation charges.

8.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.09.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 14.09.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)             

             President

 

 

 (Inder Jit)              

        Member