Rajinder Kumar filed a consumer case on 27 Feb 2018 against Lloyd Electric in the Kurukshetra Consumer Court. The case no is 152/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Mar 2018.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint No.152/17.
Date of instt. 1.8.17.
Date of Decision:27.2.2018.
Rajender Kumar son of Ram Dhari, resident of village Khanpur Rodan, District Kurukshetra.
……….Complainant.
Vs.
…………..Opposite Parties.
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh. G.C.Garg, President.
Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member,
Present: Complainant in person
Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for OPs.
ORDER
This is complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Rajinder Kumar complainant against Lloyd Electronic and Engineer Limited and another, the opposite parties.
2. It is stated in the complaint that on 24.11.2016 the complainant purchased LED bearing SE No.3220160702140 with three years warranty vide invoice/bill No.2332. The above said LED became defective within eight months just its purchase and the complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 on 24.7.2017 i.e. the service center of the company and the OP No.1 flatly refused to repair the LED in question. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence this complaint moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the L.E.D. and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that the panel of the LED was found broken after being hit by some objects due to mishandling on the part of complainant, so the complainant is not entitled to get it replaced from the OPs. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the remaining contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits as Ex.CW1/A & CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 & C2 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit ExRW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and close the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
6. From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 24.11.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.26,990/-. From the perusal of Expert Report Ex.C2, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period. i.e. on 2.12.2017. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired from Ops.
7. In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the Ops to repair the LED to the satisfaction of the complainant without any charges. The complainant is directed to bring the LED before the Ops. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties. File be consigned to record after due compliance. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.
Announced:
Dated :27.2.2018 (G.C.Garg)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.
(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.