Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/175/2019

Pooja Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kwality Care - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Bhardwaj

06 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.175 of  of 2019.

                                                                        Date of Instt.:10.05.2019

Date of Decision: 06.03.2020

 

Pooja Saini w/o Sanjeev, resident of House No.1984/27, Shanti Nagar, District Kurukshetra, Mobile No.9416685138.

                                                              …….Complainant.                                            Versus

 

1. Kwality Care (Service Centre) Opposite Hotel Pearl Mark, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Manager.
2. Videocon Corporate Office/Head Office Fort House 2^nd Floor, 221, Dr.DN Road, Fort Mumbai 400001(India)
3. Tanuj Electronics, Opp.Gita Market, 1^st Floor, Above Relexo Showroom, Railway Road, Kurukshetra (Haryana).

       ….…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 Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.  

OP No.1 and 2 ex-parte.

Shri Vikramajeet Gill, Advocate for the  OP No. No.3.

 

ORDER

              This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Pooja Saini against Kwality Care and others-the opposite parties.

 

2.           The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a New Videocon LED 55” 7VVMD55FHOZFAP Sr.No.110816110161118, Ref Videocon VZ2252179MFDA,  Sr.No.121215860143201844 vide Bill No.1151 dated 11.10.2016 from OP No.3 in cash . The said LED is manufactured by OP No.2 and the OP No.3 at the time of purchase of the said LED assured that the LED in question is of good quality and also gave warranty of five years. The OPs further assured that if any defective develops in the said LED during the period of five years, new LED would be given to the complainant.  After some days of its purchase, the LED started giving problem of lining in the screen and then the screen was totally black, the complainant contacted the OP No.3 who asked him to contact OP No.1 and accordingly the complainant  went to OPNo.1 and told about the complaint.  On asking of OP No.1, the complainant lodged online complaint No.GUR2208180103 and after two days of the complaint, engineer of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and told that panel of the said LED is defective and  if the complaint permits, he will repair/repaired at the cost of the complainant, otherwise the LED would be repaired at the service centre and it will take about one months time. The complainant deposited the LED  in the service centre of OP No.1 and after passing of the one months and thereafter daily visits of the complainant, the LED has not been repaired and OPNo.1 told that as and when panel is received, same would be replaced by them. The complainant also contacted Area Sales Manager Mr.Sahil regarding his grievance but no satisfactory reply  has been given. The OPs have neither repaired/repaired the LED nor  returned the cost of the LED to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complaint has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and prayed that the OPs be directed to  refund the cost of the LED alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 and 2 have been duly served upon, but they failed to appear and contest the present complaint, therefore, OPNo.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated  27.08.2019.

 

4.           OP No.3 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Regarding purchase of LED by the complainant from OP no.3 is stated to be a matter of record.  It is stated that no assurance to replace the LED was given by OP No.3.  The Op No2 has only given warranty of five years warranty for repair only and visit charges were to be paid by the complainant. It is denied that there was defect in the LED since beginning as alleged by the complainant. All other allegations made by the complainant have been denied and preliminary objections regarding concealment of true and material facts, mis joinder and non joinder of the parties, jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

5.           The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered document Ex.C-1 and closed his evidence.

 

6.           On the other hand, OPNo.3 failed to adduce any evidence despite  availing of sufficient opportunities and evidence of OP no.3 was closed by order of this Forum.

 

7.           We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

 

8.           The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has argued that complainant has purchased a New Videocon LED 55” 7VVMD55FHOZFAP Sr.No.110816110161118, Ref Videocon VZ2252179MFDA, Sr.No.121215860143201844 vide Bill No.1151 dated 11.10.2016 from OP No.3 in cash. The said LED is manufactured by OP No.2 and the OP No.3 at the time of purchase of the said LED assured that the LED in question is of good quality and also gave warranty of five years. It is argued that  OPs  assured that if any defective develops in the said LED during the period of five years, new LED would be given to the complainant.  After some days of its purchase, the LED started giving problem of lining in the screen and then the screen was totally blackand on asking of  OP No.3 complainant  to contact OP No.1 and accordingly the complainant  went to OPNo.1 and told about the complaint.  On asking of OP No.1, the complainant lodged online complaint No.GUR2208180103 and after two days of the  complaint, engineer of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and told that panel of the said LED is defective and  if the complaint permits, he will repair/repaired at the cost of the complainant, otherwise the LED would be repaired at the service centre and it will take about one months time. The complainant deposited the LED  in the service centre of OP No.1 but till date OPs have neither repaired the  LED in question nor replaced it with a new one.

9.           Contrary to it, the  learned counsel for OP No.3 has  argued that The Op No2 has only given warranty of five years warranty for repair only and visit charges were to be paid by the complainant and there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.3.

10.                  In this case purchase of the LED by the complainant from OP No.3 is not in dispute. Further, warranty as alleged by the complainant is also not disputed by OP No.3 whereas OP No.1 service centre of the company and OPNo.2 manufacture-company have been proceeded against ex-parte. The OP No.2 has no where stated that there is no defect in the LED in question, rather he has stated that OP  No.2 has given warranty of the LED for five years. The complainant in his complaint  has mentioned that he lodged the  complaint No.GUR2208180103 and after two days of the  complaint, engineer of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and told that panel of the said LED is defective. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that there is defect in the LED  remains in no dispute.  The complainant has lodge the complaint within warranty period but the service centre of the manufacturer company or manufacturing company has not got removed the defect of the LED or replaced the same.  The complainant had purchased the LED in question on 11.10.2016 and it is now 2020.Therefore, the complainant is entitled to a new LED of the same  price. The evidence led by the complainant completely goes unrebutted and unchallenged because OP No.1 and 2 have been have not come  present to contest the present case and have been  proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, it is established that Panel of the LED of the complainant is defective and LED of the complainant has neither been repaired nor replaced by the  OPs  and  for  not repairing or replacing the LED in question there is deficiency in services on the part of OP No.2 &  3. Therefore, OP No.2 and 3 are liable to replace the LED of the complainant with a new one.  

11.         For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 and 3 to replace the LED of the complainant  with a new one of the same price. The OP No.2 and 3  are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. 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.: 06.03.2020.                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),          (Neelam)            

Member                         Member.