Delhi

East Delhi

CC/74/2019

NAWAL KISHORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

KISHAN PAL - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 74/19

 

Shri Nawal Kishore

84-A, Pocket C-2

Mayur Vihar Phase-3

Delhi                                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. Kishan Pal

Owner of Videocon Service Centre

S/o Shri V.P. Singh

A-12, Ganesh Nagar Complex

Near Aggarwal Sweets (Mother Dairy)

Delhi – 110 092                                                             …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 21.02.2019

Judgement Reserved on: 19.12.2019

Judgement Passed on: 23.12.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

           This complaint has been filed by Shri Nawal Kishore against         Shri Kishan Pal, Owner of Videocon Service Centre (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Sansui LED TV (28”) on 27.10.2015 from M/s. Star Electronics, Mayur Vihar, Phase -3 for an amount of Rs. 14,200/- with extended warranty upto 26.10.2018.

           It is stated that the TV set stopped displaying picture due to some technical problem.  The complainant called the customer care of Videocon which is authorized by Sansui Company for repair under warranty period.  The complainant paid Rs. 650/- to the representative of OP who collected the TV set from the home of the complainant and handed over vide job sheet no. 0209180269 dated 02.09.2018.     

           It is further stated that after a period of 04 months, OP neither returned the LED TV nor responded telephone calls.  The complainant visited the service centre several times, but of no avail.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to return the TV in question in working condition as the same was in warranty period; to  pay Rs. 650/- which was taken for collecting the TV from the house of the complainant; Rs. 10,000/- compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and           Rs. 5,000/- towards legal charges.     

3.        Notice of the complaint served upon OP, but none has appeared.  Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.        In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been  stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited copy of warranty card of TV set (Annex. 1) and copy of job sheet dated 02.09.2018 (Annex. 2).

6.        We have heard the complainant and have perused the material placed on record. During the course of arguments, complainant have stated that Shri Kishan Pal, Owner of Videocon Service Centre (OP) have not returned the TV set after repair.  If the service report filed is perused, it is noticed that the complainant handed over his TV set on 03.09.2018 with extended warranty.  The date of purchase is stated to be 27.10.2015.  The service report also shows that ‘display panel was broken’. 

           The fact that TV has been handed over for repair during its extended warranty and have not been returned by the service centre, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of service centre, owned by Shri Kishan Pal.  When the TV set has not been returned after its repair, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

           In view of the above, we order that Shri Kishan Pal, Owner of Videocon Service Centre (OP) shall return the TV set after its repair with extended warranty of 6 months.  No service charges are to be taken by the service centre.  Further, Shri Kishan Pal, Owner of Videocon Service Centre (OP)  have to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain and suffering which the complainant have suffered.  The order be complied within a period of 60 days.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                                           President