Punjab

Sangrur

CC/15/2018

Arshpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.G.Electronic India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sukhjeet Singh

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM,                                        SANGRUR.

               

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  15

                                                Instituted on:    12.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       24.08.2018

 

 

Arshpreet Singh minor son of Narain Singh, resident of Beer Ahmdabad, Nabha Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur through his guardian her mother Ranjit Kaur  wife of Narain Singh.                                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

                                Versus

1.     L.G. Electronic India Pvt. Limited Plot No.51, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida, 201306 (U.P) through its M.D.

2.     Shri Vishavkaram Furniture House, Maloud Road, Totapuri, Kup Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur through its proprietor Parminder Singh Bittu.

3.     Sh. Parminder Singh Bittu, Proprietor Shri Vishavkaram Furniture House, Malaud Road, Kup Kalan, Kup Kalan Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur.  

 

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sukhjeet Singh, Adv.

For the OP No.1        :       Shri Kuldeep Jain Advocate

For OPs No. 2 and 3 :       Shri K.S.Toor, Advocate

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

                        Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1              Arshpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a LED of L.G company  from Ops no.2 and 3 for an amount of Rs.14000/- vide invoice number 1045 dated 09.05.2016 and  paid an amount of Rs.3000/- at the time of purchase. The complainant  also paid an amount of Rs.2200/- and Rs.2300/-  but the Ops  did not issue any original receipt. On 2.8.2016 the said LED gave problem  and intimation was given to the OPs  who checked the LED and  told that there is manufacturing defect in the LED  .  The LED was sent to the company service centre. After passing 3-4 months the OPs no.2 and 3 did not handover the LED to the complainant when  the complainant approached the OPs then they refused to handover the LED and used the filthy language towards the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to handover the LED  or refund the amount of Rs.7500/-  alongwith interest  from the date of purchased till realization, pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts have been taken up. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the LED of L.G. company.  The complainant never lodged  any complaint regarding any alleged defect of his LED to the OP no.1.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no.2 and 3,  it is submitted that neither the complainant  intimated regarding  any problem in the LED nor  any employee of the OPs  visited the house of the complainant as alleged.  So the question of taking the LED  does not arise.  It is stated that the complainant purchased the LED from the OPs on the credit basis and this fact is clearly mentioned on the invoice  issued to the complainant.  The complainant except Rs.3000/-  as advance never paid any single penny to the OPs.  The complainants approached the OPs again and again for remaining amount but the OPs lingers the matter with one pretext and other.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence. 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a LED of L.G. company  in the sum of Rs.14000/-  from the Ops no.2 and 3  and paid an amount of Rs.3000/- which is evident from the copy of retail invoice  dated 9.05.2016 Ex.C-2.

7.             The complainant's specific case is that he had paid an amount of Rs.3000/- at the time of purchase of LED. Thereafter an amount of Rs.2200/- vide receipt number 1467   and Rs.2300/-  vide receipt number 1640 were also paid  by the complainant to the OPs.  The grievance of the complainant is that  on 2.8.2018  LED started giving problem  and intimation was given to  the OPs no.2 and 3  who sent their employee in the house of the complainant who  checked the LED and told that  problem  can be solved from company service centre who took the LED in the presence of friend Karamjit Singh and relative Binder Singh.  In support of his version the complainant  has produced affidavit of Karamjit Singh Ex.C-1 and affidavit of Ranjit Kaur Ex.C-4.

8.             On the other hand, the OPs have stated that  neither the complainant intimated regarding any problem nor  their employee visited the house of the complainant,  so the question of  taking the LED does not arise. Moreover, the complainant purchased the LED from the OPs on the credit basis and at the time of purchase he paid only an amount of Rs.3000/- .

9.             From the perusal of the documents placed on the file by the parties and after hearing the arguments of the parties, we find that the OPs have not produced on record any document which could not show that they made any effort to recover the remaining amount from the complainant.  The complainant has produced on  record a receipt dated 9.5.2016 which shows that  he paid a total amount of Rs.7500/- to the Ops.  The complainant has also produced  an affidavit of Karamjit Singh Ex.C-1 in whose presence the OPs took the  LED from the complainant.  The OPs have not produced any document on record which proves the version of the OPs regarding  non-taking the LED of the complainant. So, we feel that the complainant has fully proved his  case rather the Ops have miserably failed to prove their case.   

10.           In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OPs no.2 and 3 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.7500/- and also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- as compensation.  

11.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

                Announced.

                August 24, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sarita Garg)

                                                           Presiding Member

 

 

                                                             

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member