Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/131/2019

Rajinder Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Seema Radio and watch - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Gill

30 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Dr. Shahabuddin, President.                                                         Sh.Jasvinder Singh and Smt.Saroj Bala, Members

 

 

Complaint Case No.131 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:27.03.2019.

Date of Decision: 30.03.2022.

Rajender Bhardwaj son of Sham Lal resident of near Old Tehsil Ward No.19, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

 

...Complainant

     Versus

1. Manager/Proprietor, Seema Radio and Watch Company, Nehru Market Railway Road, Tohana District Fatehabad.

2.  Managing Director, Videocon Industries, Plot No.248, Udyog Vihar PH IV, Gurugram, Haryana, 120001.

..Opposite Parties (Ops)

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Gill, Advocate for complainant.

                   Ops exparte.

                  

 

ORDER

 1.               The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act).

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a 28 inch LED of Videocon company Model MB28hh07FA, bearing Sr. No.P110815110149803783 from opposite party no.1 (in short Op No.1) for a sum of Rs.15,000/-  vide bill No.3298 dated 13.11.2015; that five years guarantee was given to the complainant by Op No.1 at the time of selling of the LED; that  the LED in question stopped working within the given guarantee period in the month of May, 2018, therefore, the complainant made complaint to OP No.1; that on the asking of Op No.1, the complainant also lodged complaint regarding this matter with Op No.2, who sent a mechanic namely Gurjeet to the house of the complainant; that mechanic of the Op No.2 repaired the LED after charging Rs.700/- from the complainant but it again went out of order within 3 days; that thereafter, the complainant took that LED to Op no.1 which got repaired the same through an agent Monu who charged Rs.1000/- from the complainant; that the LED again stopped working and the complainant again took the same to OP No.1 who retained the LED and did not return the same to the complainant, despite visit of complainant to office of Op No.1 from time to time; that the complainant got served legal notice also upon the Ops to redress his grievances but to no effect; that the act and conduct of the Ops clearly makes them liable for deficiency in service, on their part, and for the violation of the relevant provisions of CP Act. In the end, a prayer has been made that complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.15,000/- as cost of LED. Rs.50,000/- also claimed towards physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant. litigation expenses also claimed.

3.                          On notice, Op No.1 refused to receive the summons, therefore, this party was proceeded against exparte on  30.04.2019.

4.                None had appeared on behalf of Op No.2 despite issuance of summons through registered post, therefore, this party was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.07.2019.

5.                The complainant tendered his evidence by way of his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A. Documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 also filed in support of contentions of complainant. Then complainant’s evidence was closed.

6.                Final arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant, in which there were almost repetitions of averments of the complaint on record.  We have perused the file minutely.

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a LED 28 inch of Videocon company Model MB28hh07FA, bearing Sr. No.P110815110149803783, from opposite party no.1, for a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide bill No.3298 dated 13.11.2015, as is evident through Annexure C1.  Perusal of Annexure C2 reveals that the product in question was having five year warranty period. The grievance of the complainant is that the LED in question went out of order repeatedly during warranty period and regarding this, complaints were lodged  with Ops several times vide Annexure C3 and even legal notice Annexure C4 was also served upon OPs to redress his grievance but when the needful was not done and then the complainant approached this Commission. The pleadings and contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as the Ops did not join the proceedings of the case and are exparte. So, we are of the considered opinion that OPs are deficient in service as defined under CP Act, by not redressing the grievances of the complainant after selling the product in question to the complainant.

8.                Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, we allow this complaint and direct the Ops to refund the cost of the LED i.e. Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen thousand)  to the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.8000/- (eight thousand), in lump sum, for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant and also for his efforts to pursue this matter in this Commission for a long time i.e. the litigation charges. Hence, this complaint decided accordingly. The liability of Ops is joint as well as several.  Order of this Commission be complied with by Ops during a period of 30 days from today, failing which relief amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room as per rules after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                          Dated:30.03.2022