Haryana

Kurukshetra

287/2018

Rajesh kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Khalsa Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Azad

12 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.287 of 2018.

Date of instt.: 19.12.2018.

                                                                         Date of Decision:12.9.2019.

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Sh.Jagdish Chander, resident of Parkash Colony, Village Kishanpura, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

 

1. M/s Khalsa Electronics, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra, through authorized dealer and service station of Lloyd LCD Company.
2. Nath Electroncis Lloyd authorized Centre, Bahri Mohlla, New Darra Khera, Thanser, District Kurukshetra.

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                    Ms. Neelam, Member.

                    Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present :        Sh. Sanjay Azad, Advocate for complainant.

                    OPs already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

 

                    The complainant-Rajesh Kumar has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Khalsa Electronics and another, the opposite parties. 

2.             Brief facts of present complaint are that the complainant purchased a LCD of Lloyd company vide bill No.1330 dated 9.5.2015 for Rs.2300/-.  The model of the LCD is LLOYD32 Model No.L32 NT Sr.No.L32NTB 1412250.  The guarantee period of the above said LCD was given three years and it was also assured by the opposite parties at the time of purchasing the LCD, if it exists manufacturing defect/fault then it will be replaced within three years. It is further alleged that from the very beginning it was having problem but on 9.6.2015 LCD did not worked properly.  There was some line shown on the LCD screen.  He approached the Ops to check the said LCD.  It is further alleged that after taking the LCD, opposite party No.2 kept it for after few months and again given to complainant and told and LCD was quite O.K.  It was again worked properly for few days and the same problem was started in LCD.  It was under guarantee/warrantee till date.  It is further alleged that in the month of November-2017, the above said LCD again the picture on the screen of the LCD was disappeared and the screen was totally black.  He went to the Ops and the Ops repaired main board of LCD and lastly the Op No.l2 delivered the LCD on 23.1.2018 after receiving the Rs.1200/- for repairing charges.  But the said LCD did not work properly till today.  It is further alleged that later on, he went to Ops with faulty LCD and the OP returned the LCD by saying that it cannot be repaired now.  When he insisted for replacement of LCD the Op refused to do so.  When he approached the OP for the replacement of LCD, he also refused for the same. It is further alleged that LCD is having some manufacturing defect, but the OP has refused to replace the same.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint with the prayer of acceptance of same with the direction to Ops to replace LCD with the new one of the same model or to return the price of LCD and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.   

2.             Upon notice, the Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 30.4.2019 & 30.7.2019.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of cash/credit memo as Ex.C1, copy of repair bill as Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.    

4.             We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.             The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments of his complaint. The complainant has also placed on file copy of bill Ex.C-1, copy of repair bill Ex.C-2 and copy of legal notice Ex.C-4. The evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallenged and un-rebutted as Ops have opted to proceed against ex-parte and they have failed to file any reply.  So, we have no other option but to reply the case of complainant.  The LCD purchased by the complainant on 9.5.2015 was defective and the Ops also received Rs.1200/- as repairing charges.  This shows the LCD was defective.  The complaint of the complainant is genuine one.

6.     In such like circumstances, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.24,200/- i.e. price of LCD+repairing charges to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:­­­­­­­­­­­­­­12.9.2019. 

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.