Haryana

StateCommission

A/155/2016

SUBHASH CHANDER MADAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANGLA VISION - Opp.Party(s)

AMAR CHAD

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      155 of 2016

Date of Institution:      19.02.2016

Date of Decision :       26.07.2016

 

Subhash Chander Madan s/o Sh. K.L. Madan, Resident of House No.1546, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Mangla Vision, through its Proprietor, SCO No.29, Sector-11, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.      Unique Electronics, through its proprietor (authorised service Centre of LG Electronics Private Limited), SCO No.42, Haripur, near Mittu Jewelers, Sector-4, Panchkula.

3.      LG Electronics India Private Limited, through its Managing Director, A Wing, Third Floor, D-3, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Amar Chand, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Mohit Sachdeva, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The partly successful complainant is in appeal against the order dated January 5^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.            

2.      Subhash Chander Madan-complainant/appellant, purchased one Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) 42”, Make-LG, Model-42LG80FR, on September 28^th, 2009 for Rs.60,000/- vide bill Annexure-1, from M/s Mangla Vision-Opposite Party No.1, the authorised dealer of LG Electronics India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.3 (manufacturer).  After about six years, that is, in August, 2016, the LCD developed defects. The complainant approached Unique Electronics-Opposite Party No.3, the authorised Service Centre of the opposite party No.3 but the LCD was not repaired because the model of the LCD had been discontinued by the manufacturer and its spare parts were not available in the market.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The Opposite Parties-respondents appeared through counsel but they did not file written version, therefore, their defence was struck off.

4.      After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and granted relief as under:-

“…….The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i)      To repair the LCD of the complainant and charge the repair cost of parts so replaced.

(ii)      To pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation caused to the complainant.”

5.      Learned  counsel for the complainant-appellant has urged that the defective LCD, which is lying with the complainant, rendered worthless and the complainant has purchased a new Light Emitting Diode (LED) for Rs.68,000/-. Thus, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, the LCD in question developed defects after warranty period. The opposite parties have been directed to repair the LCD by charging price of the defective parts besides awarding compensation of Rs.3,000/-. In view of this, the relief granted to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation.

7.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

Announced 26.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL