Delhi

StateCommission

FA/246/2014

JITENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

JYOTI ELECTRONICS & FURNITURE & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                                 Date of Decision: 08.03.2017

 

First Appeal- 246/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 402/13)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

 

 

                Sh. Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Rambhaj Singh,

          R/o RZ B-76, Bindapur Extension,

          Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

 

……Appellant     Versus   1. Jyoti Electronics & Furniture E-6, Pratap Garden, Main Bindapur DDA Flats Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi- 110059                                                                                                …….Respondent

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.                This is an appeal wherein challenge is made to order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint case No. 402/13.

2.                Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

                    A complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum stating therein on 19.07.2012 the appellant/complainant had purchased a Philips LCD TV Model 24PFL6306/V7 having Serial No. 110572019003103441 from respondent/OP-1 and the said LCD was having a warranty of one year. In the month of August 2012 some problem arose in the picture of the said LCD and a complaint was made to respondent/OP-1 to either replace the product or rectify the problem. It was alleged that the complaint was forwarded by respondent/OP-1 to manufacturer i.e. OP-2 of complaint case (not made a party in this appeal). OP-2 found problem in the plate and had rectified the same after 15 days of making of the complaint. Again problem arose after one month thereof. The plate was once again changed. It was alleged that again in December 2012 when the problem arose, a complaint No. PDEL1312120004 was registered after repeated requests of the appellant/complainant. One Mr. Salim came from OP-2 and took away the TV for service and returned the same after 15 days. It was further alleged that on 20.04.203 defect arose in its Speaker System and it had no sound thereafter. A complaint was lodged by the appellant/complainant vide Complaint No. PDEL2004130018 on 20.04.2013. It was alleged that appellant/complainant was told that the OP-2 would replace it. On 25.04.2013 One Mr. Sumer visited the premises of the appellant/complainant and on opening the LCD had told that its Speaker System was damaged and OP-2 would arrange for another system within a day or two. Again the appellant/complainant was informed that the Speaker System for the particular model was not available and the same would be arranged within a further period of one or two days. Thereafter none had reverted back to him to redress his grievance. A legal notice dated 27.04.2013 was served upon the respondent/OP-1 but there was no action from their side. The appellant/complainant had prayed for the replacement of the LCD TV with a new one of the same model, Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation costs.

3.                Respondent/OP-1 as well as OP-2 were ex-parte before the Ld. District Forum.

4.                The appellant/complainant had filed evidence by way of affidavit. After being the appellant/complainant, the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that there was no iota of evidence placed on record by the appellant/complainant in respect of allegations and the complaint was dismissed.

5.                Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

6.                No one has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant despite awaiting. Even on the last date of hearing none had appeared for him.

7.                We have perused the impugned order as well as considered the material on record.

8.                The relevant para of the impugned order passed by Ld. District Forum in dismissing the complaint is reproduced as under:

                   “The fact of purchase of a Philips LCD Model 24PFL6306/V7, Serial No.110572019003103441 by the complainant from Respondent No. 1 on 19.07.2012 for Rs. 13,500/- vide Retail Invoice No. 2300, Book No. 4 6 dated 19.07.2012, copy of which is filed on record, is not in dispute. The complainant has not filed on record any Service Report/Job Sheet issued by the respondent company to substantiate his claim that on earlier occasion, i.e. , in August 2012 and one month thereafter and then again in December 2012, the same problem had erupted in the LCD and the respondent company had rectified the same. Not a single job sheet has been filed on record to substantiate the allegations made by him in the case in hand. It is not the case of the complainant that despite asking for the Service Reports/Job Sheets the attending engineer of the Respondent Company refused to give him. Further, there is not an iota of evidence that in response to the complaint lodged on 20.04.2013 by the complainant, the respondents had failed to rectify the problem and had turned a deaf ear to it.”

9.                  The main reason for dismissal of the complaint case is that the appellant/complainant did not place on record any Service Report/Job Sheet issued by the respondent/OP-1 or OP-2 to substantiate his stand that on earlier occasions i.e. in August 2012 and one month thereafter and then in December 2012 the problem reoccurred in the LCD and the respondent/OP-1 as well as OP-2 had rectified the same. The appellant/complainant did not place on record a single job sheet before the Ld. District Forum.

10.              We have perused the record requisitioned from the Ld. District Forum. Considering the material on record, the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that no Job Sheet/relevant material is placed on record by the appellant/complainant to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. Even in the appeal before us nothing has been placed on record by the appellant. Only photocopy of the bill of purchase of LCD and legal notice is placed on record.

11.              We find no reason to disagree with well reasoned order passed by the Ld. District Forum. Accordingly, we find no merits in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.

 

 

                   A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. The record of the Ld. District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member