Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/86/2014

Pt Rama Nand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kohli Electronics, - Opp.Party(s)

Anita Sharma

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No… 86  of 2014.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 07.02.2014.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 23.11.2016.

Pt. Rama Nand aged about 40 years son of Sh. Satya Nand, resident of Mandir Satguru Pyare Ji Maharaj, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Kohli Electronics, Shop No. 15, Dwarka Dass Market, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./Partner.
2. Philips India Limited, 9^th Floor, DLF 9-B, DLF Cyber City, Sector 25, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director. 

                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                         …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

               Sh. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

               Respondent No.2 already ex-parte. 

            

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Pt. Rama Nand  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the T.V. of the complainant with new one or to refund the bill amount alongwith interest and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings.

 2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a colour TV make Philips CTU 21 for an amount of Rs. 7000/- vide bill No. 1029 dated 27.04.2013 from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2. The aforesaid T.V. was not working properly since the very beginning having some in built defect which could not be rectified or removed despite repeated complaints. The complainant again complained to the OP No.1 against the inadequate performance of his TV but no one came to remove the defect. Whenever complainant asked the OPs to replace the TV set, the OPs always put him of by making promises that they will take up the case with the company but till now nothing positive could be heard by the complainant from the OPs. The act and conduct of the OPs are deficient and negligent in services to the complainant. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment and economic loss. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas Op No.2 failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.03.2015.

4.                     OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OP No.1 in giving services to the complainant. Moreover, after sale service within warranty period was to be provided by the company and OPNo.1 being dealer has no role to play except to forward the complaint of complainant to the company. When the complainant approached the OP No.1 with his complaint, the complainant had duly informed the company. The representative of the company came and checked the TV and removed the defect. Again when the TV became defective, the representative of the company again came but the complainant did not allow them to open the TV to make necessary repairs and so the TV could not be repaired. Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; complaint is vague and indefinite and it does not disclose as to what was the defect in the TV; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Cash Memo dated 27.04.2013 as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Virender Singh Proprietor of Kohli Electronics as Annexure RW/A  and closed its evidence.

 7.                    We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased a T.V. Make CTU 212 Philips  from OP No.1 on 27.04.2013 which is evident from the bill bearing No. 1029 dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure C-1).

9.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that T.V. in question purchased from OPNo.1 started giving some problem from the very beginning and due to this the complainant visited the OP No.1 who repaired it only for one time but later on refused to remove the defect from the T.V. This plea of the complainant is not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to file any mechanic/expert report to prove that the T.V. in question was having any manufacturing defect or remained dead or out of working order during the currency of warranty period and in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Forum is unable to hold that T.V. in question was having any manufacturing defect and the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with new one. Although the complainant has not filed any expert or mechanic report to prove that T.V. in question was having any manufacturing defect but from the pleading of the OP No.1 specifically contents of para No.1 of the written statement filed by Op No.1, it is admitted case of the OP No.1 that complainant contacted the Op No.1, the representative of the company came and checked the TV and removed the defect. Again, when the TV became defective, the representative of the company again came but the complainant did not allow them to open the TV to make necessary repairs and so the TV could not be repaired.  Meaning thereby, that the T.V. of the complainant was out of order due to some reasons again and again but at this stage after a period of 3 years it is not possible to repair or replace the said T.V.   

10.                   In these circumstances noted above, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get replacement of the T.V. in question but it does not mean that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as it is admitted case of the Op No.1 that the T.V. in question was defective and the same was repaired by the representative of OP No.2. So, we are of the considered view that complainant might have suffered mental agony and harassment in the hands of the OPs and he was forced to file the present complaint to redress his grievances. To avoid the further litigation, it is necessary to refund 80% of the cost of T.V. to the complainant as the complainant has filed the present complaint within a period of 9-10 months from the date of purchase.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5600/- being 80% of the cost of T.V. subject to deposit of old T.V. set with the OPs and further to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per rules. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:23.11.2016.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                              PRESIDENT,

 

 

                                                                                             (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                              MEMBER.