Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/192/2019

Sushma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Konihoor - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Singh

18 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.192 of 2019.

                                                Date of Instt. 17.05.2019.

                                                Date of Decision: 18.02.2020.

 

Sushma wife of Shri Raj Pal, r/o H.No.941, Ward No.12, New Laxman Colony, Thanesar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                            Versus

 

1. Kohinoor Sales Corporation, Jhansa Road, Kurukshetra through its Proprietor.
2. MIRC Electronics Ltd., Registered Office, Onida House, G-1, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 (Maharastra) through its Managing Director.

 

                ……Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.     

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Kuldeep Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

                Opposite Party No.1 ex parte.

Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate, for the Opposite             Party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, moved by the complainant  Smt.Sushma against Kohinoor Sales Corporation   and others, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a Onida LED 43” Android, Model No.LED 43F1ab2, having Serial No.#17104#003849 from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, vide bill No.7692 dated 16.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.33,600/- with two years warranty. The said LED was having inherent manufacturing defect from the very beginning, as after two days of its purchase, the display problem arose. He approached the OP No.1, who assured that complaint will be made to the OP No.2 and they will send their mechanic to resolve the problem. He waited for sufficient time, but no mechanic of OPs came to see the problem in the LED. He again approached OP No.1, but he prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, refused to solve the problem, rather told him to approach the OP No.2. Thereafter, he approached the OP No.2 through emails as well as through telephonically and as such, its engineer came and inspected the LED and told that there is manufacturing defect in it and required replacement. She continued waiting for replacement of the LED, but the OPs failed to replace the LED or to remove the defect. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 and consequently, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.07.2019 of this Forum.

                Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability and mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the LED in question from the OP No.1. It is denied that at the time of purchase, two years warranty was provided by the OPs with the assurance that in case of any defect in the LED, the same will be replaced within warranty period. It is also denied that the LED was having inherent manufacturing defect from the very beginning. It is submitted that call was logged by the OP No.1 on 16.10.2018 and on inspection, it was found that panel was broken due to acts and omission on the part of the OP No.1, who was informed about the same. The OP No.1 and the complainant, in connivance with each, filed the present false case. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case.

5.             On the perusal of the file it clearly shows that LED  was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 16.10.2018. It is also admitted fact by the OP no.3 that on the same day  on 16.10.2018, after receiving the complaint  from the complainant, OP No.2 inspected the above said unit and  it was found that panel of the LED was broken due to act and omission of OP no.1  It is also admitted by OP no.2 that all the information  relating to that was given to OP No.1.

6.             The OP No.1 has failed to appear before this Forum despite due service, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte and this  intentional absence of the OP No.1 shows  his behavior. There is no manufacturing defect in the LED. It clearly shows that OP No.1 has sold the defective LED to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.

 

7.           So, we allow the present complaint and direct the  OP no.1  to replace the LED of the complainant with a new one of the same value and Model and if the same is not available, then OP No.1 shall refund the cost of the LED i.e. Rs.33,600/- i.e. price of the LED in question to the complainant  and it is also directed to  OP No.1  to pay  lump sum amount of  Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the complainant  ,failing the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings  under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. The OP No.1 will be entitled to receive the old LED from the complainant against proper receipt. The complaint qua Op no.2 stands dismissed.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:18.02.2020.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                            President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)     

Member                               Member.