Haryana

Panchkula

CC/44/2021

SURINDER KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANSAL ELECTRONICS. - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT ANAND.

09 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	44 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	27.01.2021
Date of Decision	:	09.02.2022

 

 

Surinder Kumar son of Parkash Chand, aged 58 years, Resident of House No. 1413/2, Opposite Shiv Mandir, Ram Bagh Road, Kamla Nagar, Kalka District Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Kansal Electronics, Shop No. 741, Main Bazar, Kalka, District     Panchkula through its authorized person.

2.     Videocon Service Center, Office at Jai Durga Electronics, C/o     Chandigarh Sweets, Nalagarh Road, Pinjore, District Panchkula      through its authorized person/Service engineer.

3.     Videocon Service Center, office at Videocon Tower Jhandewalan,       Delhi through its authorized person/Service engineer.

4.     Videocon Head Office Limited, Fort House, 2^nd Floor, 221, Dr. DN        Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its authorized person.

                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (AMENDED UPTO DATE).

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Shri Rohit Anand, Advocate, Counsel for the Complainant.   

OPs No.1 to 4 already ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2021.                   

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Videocon LED TV bearing model/mark No. VMA 40 FH17XAH 110816110148304496 vide invoice no. 6679 dated 21.10.2016 amounting to Rs. 31,500/- from the OP No. 1 and it gave the 3 years of guarantee on the product in question. The officials of OP No.1 have installed the product at the Complainant’s residence. The said product worked good for only two years. But in the month of February 2019, the Complainant started facing problem in the product as when the Complainant switched on the TV, its screen was totally blank. On online complaint made by the Complainant, the official of OP No. 2 Shri Balwinder Singh visited his house and on checking, he told the Complainant that panel of Videocon LED TV was not working properly and the defective part being under guarantee would be replaced by the company free of costs and assured that within 15 days, the problem would be resolved, and he charged Rs. 1300/- from the Complainant. The Complainant again called several times and contacted the Videocon customer care numbers but no one paid any heed to the requests of the Complainant regarding the LED TV problem and postponed the matter from one day to another. The Complainant served a legal notice dated 01.12.2020 upon the OPs through registered post dated 04.12.2020 but the OPs neither replied the notice nor repaired/solved the problem of LED TV. The Complainant requested to the OPs to comply with the legal notice but they refused. The act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.   

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No. 1 to 4 through registered post (vide registered post No.RH508060967IN, RH508061168IN, RH508060940IN and RH508061171IN respectively on 11.06.2021) which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs; hence, it was deemed to be served upon OPs and thus, due to non appearance of OPs, they were proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 26.08.2021.

3.             To prove his case, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has tendered Affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have gone through the entire record available on the file carefully and minutely.

 5.            Evidently, a Videocon LED TV model/mark No. VMA 40 FH17XAH 110816110148304496 vide invoice no. 6679 dated 21.10.2016 amounting to Rs. 31,500/- was purchased by the Complainant from OP No.1. From the said bill, it is also clear that the OP No.1 gave a warranty of three years qua the said LED TV. The said TV became defective on account of certain defects in its panel and in this regard, as per Whatsapp conversation made by the Complainant with the officials of OP No.2, the complaint was lodged for the rectification of the defects. In response to the complaint, one official namely- Shri Balwinder Singh visited the house of the Complainant and inspected the said TV and advised that its panel requires replacement and charged Rs. 1300/- from the Complainant. The grievances of the Complainant are that despite the approval of replacement of panel of LED TV by OP No.3 as per Annexure C-3, nothing has been done by OPs No. 2, 3 and 4. It is contended that he has been asked to contact one official or the other for the removal of defects in the TV but the defects in the TV has not been removed so far. Apart from above, the legal notice Annexure C-7 was sent to the OPs which also evoked no response from the OPs.

6.             The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant; and as such, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor had they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of his grievances that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the Affidavit and Annexures in support thereof. Thus, we hold that the OPs are liable jointly and severally for the deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.             Coming to the relief, it is found that the Complainant has prayed either for the repairs or the replacement of the Videocon TV with the new one or to refund the sale price including all expenses which were borne by him. Apart from this, a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and 11,000/- has been claimed on account of deficiency in services, mental agony and harassment and litigation charges respectively.

 9.            In view of the above stated factual position, in our opinion, the grievances of the Complainant would be adequately satisfied in case the OPs are directed to replace the said LED TV with the new one bearing the same model/size/features or in case of non-availability of the same model, refund the bill amount of Rs. 31,500/- to the Complainant.

10.            As a result of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and dispose of with the following directions to the OPs:-

(i)      To replace the said LED TV in question with the new one bearing same model/size/features or in case of non-availability of the same model, refund the bill amount of Rs. 31,500/- to the Complainant subject to return of the LED TV in question to the OPs.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.

(iii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.  

 

11.            The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the awarded sum vide Para 10(i) above shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% from the date of this order till its realization. Further, the Complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 09.02.2022

 

 

   Dr.Sushma Garg        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                 Member                 Member                                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

   Satpal                                                

 President