Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/862

Sarbjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D.Europe Digital Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Compl.in person

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                C.C.No.863 of 16.12.2014

                                                          Date of decision:26.02.2015 

Dr.Sandeep Kumar R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Gurdware Wali Gali, Amloh Road, Khanna-141401, Distt. Ludhiana.

                                                          ….Complainant.

                                       Versus       

1.The Managing Director, Europa Digital Ltd.,2^nd Floor, Vardhaman Market, J-Block, PKT-JG, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.

2.EMI Square Finance Company, 2^nd Floor, Vardhaman Market, J-Block, PKT-JG, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.

3. Europa Digital Ltd. Jagat Market, S.C.O.-71/72, Adjoining R.S.Electronics, Old Cinema Road, Khanna-141401.

                                                …Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

                  

Present:       Complainant Dr.Sandeep Kumar in person.

Ops ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Dr.Sandeep Kumar(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against The Managing Director, Europa Digital Ltd.,2^nd Floor, Vardhaman Market, J-Block, PKT-JG, Vikas Puri, New Delhi and others(hereinafter in short to be described ‘Ops’), directing them to issue the bill/invoice/warranty, guaranty card to the complainant besides to pay Rs.15 lakh as compensation alongwith 12% interest and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of October, 2013 in Khanna city hoarding displayed on various places regarding the Europa LED Smart TV and after saw that hoarding, the complainant went to branch office of OP1 and met the branch Manager Mr.Manjit Singh, who introduced the product and told the cost of Rs.55,950/- with two years piece replacement guaranty and also told about EMI plan of the company that initially the complainant would pay Rs.6900/- in advance and rest amount should be paid in installments that is 150 per day for 327 days or the complainant should be paid his installments weekly or 10 days collectively inspite of daily and further told that in 42 inches Europa LED Smart Tv, company provides wireless key-board mouse free of cost alongwith one more offer that they will provide a gift to the complainant and that gift must be above Tablet mobile of branded company or minimum at least Tablet Mobile or may be above from this. After some days, in Navratras, the complainant again went to the office of OP3 to purchase the 42 inches Europa LED Smart TV. But on 12.10.2013, when the complainant had paid  Rs.6900/- in cash and the branch manager of abovesaid company took the signatures of the complainant on blank papers. When the complainant checked the packing of 42 inches aforesaid TV, the complainant noted that in the box there was no wireless key-board and mouse and on the same time, asked from them, then Mr.Manjit Singh replied that if the complainant is interested to take it then the complainant should pay Rs.1800/- extra. When the complainant informed about the assurance, then the OP3 totally refused his commitment. After that, the complainant had asked about gift which was offered by Manjit Singh, then Mr.Manjit Singh had replied that his gift is pending and before the festival of Diwali, it will be in his hand. After this disappointment, the complainant came back alongwith 42 inches Europa LED TV. The said company issued an ID for abovesaid LED that is 16901. When few days passed, the complainant again visited the branch office of OP3 and met to Mr.Manjit Singh and asked about his gift, who again replied that they definitely gave complainant’s gift as it is his guaranty. After some days, the complainant again contacted to branch manager regarding offers which he promised the complainant and also for getting its bill and guaranty card. Then, Mr.Manjit Singh told to the complainant that if the complainant purchase one more LED of his company even 32 inches, then their company provide him everything which Mr.Manjit Singh promised him earlier. On 4.11.2013, the complainant had purchased another 32 inches Europa LED by paying RS.3950/-in cash but the story is same and nothing should be given to him. The complainant approached Mr.Sunil, the Senior Manager of Ops but with no result. On 7.11.2013, the complainant sent email to the customer care of abovesaid company and explained the entire matter but nobody give any satisfactory response. However, as per the version of Manager that when EMI of ID No.16901 are over, then the complainant will get NOC, Bill and guaranty card. On 8.9.2014, the complainant paid all EMI to person of the abovesaid company, who came regular for the collection of the EMI, then the complainant asked from him that please tell him that where is NOC, bill and guaranty card of his ID 16901 then he told the complainant that after some days, he will got it. But after some days, the person of abovesaid company gave NOC to the complainant of EMI Square Finance Company not of Europa Digital Ltd, vide which, it find mentioned that as per their records, there is no amount outstanding towards his loan account and their customers do not require any invoice/warranty card to claim warranty. The customer just needs to provide its ID or registered mobile to claim warranty. The complainant reported the matter to Ops several times but despite all hs pleadings, Ops have ignored at all. Such act and conduct of OPs is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Notices of the complaint were sent to OPs through registered post on 02.01.2015 but the same were not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.09.02.2015 by this District Forum.  

4.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and closed the ex-parte evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has placed on record his affidavit as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complainant. Further, he has proved on record the documents Ex.P1 copy of email sent by the complainant to the customer care of Ops requesting them to provide the proper services from the side of Ops, Ex.P2 copy of Customer Statement showing the amount of installments paid by the complainant on different dates to the Ops qua the purchase of the LED in question and Ex.P2 copy of No Dues Certificate issued by OP2 to the complainant mentioning the fact that as per their records, there is no amount outstanding towards the loan account of the complainant.

7.                Since, the OPs did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had purchased the 42 inches Europa LED TV from OP3 by paying Rs.6900/- in cash and the branch manager of OP3 had taken the signatures of the complainant on blank papers. As per the allegations of the complainant that when the complainant had checked the packing of 42 inches aforesaid LED TV, the complainant had noted that in the box, there was no wireless key-board and mouse and when the complainant had inquired about the same from OP3, who raised demand of Rs.1800/- extra for the same. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the complainant had paid the entire amount to the Ops qua the purchase of the LED TV in question which is evident from the copy of Customer Statement Ex.P2 and there is no amount outstanding towards the loan account of the complainant which is evident from document Ex.P3 copy of ‘No Dues Certificate’ which was issued by OP2 to the complainant. Further, as per the allegations of the complainant that despite repeated requests made by the complainant to the Ops to provide him NOC, Bill and guaranty card, but they failed to do so. Since, it is proved on record that the complainant had already cleared the dues towards his loan account towards the purchase of the LED in question, so it is obligatory on the part of the Ops to issue NOC, Bill and guaranty Card to the complainant, in case, nothing is due against the complainant. So, non-issuance of the NOC, Bill and guaranty card to the complainant clearly amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

9.                In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to issue the NOC, Bill and guaranty card to the complainant, in case, nothing is due against him and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

         (Babita)                   (Sat Paul Garg)                         (R.L.Ahuja)

      Member                    Member                                    President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:26.02.2015

Gurpreet Sharma