Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/105/2022

Kiran Saini W/o Dharambir Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

Megastar LED Tv - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Mittal

25 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

Complaint No. 105 of 2022

Date of institution: 11.03.2022

                                Date of decision: 25.09.2024

 

Kiran Saini wife of Dharambir Singh resident of H. No.511, Sector-30,  Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

Versus

 

        1.    Megastar LED Pvt. Ltd., BO:, Shree Ram Marg, Opposite Indo Wooltex, Sector-25, Part II, HUDA Bypass Panipat-132103, through Prop./Partner.

        2.    Sonu Saini employee of the company of the Megastar LED Ltd., BO:, 7, Shree Ram Marg, Opposite Indo Wooltex, Sector-25, Part II, HUDA Bypass Panipat-132103, LED light NO.9215200563.

 

…Opposite parties.

CORAM:    Dr.Neelima Shangla, President.

Neelam, Member.

Ramesh Kumar, Member.

 

Present:   Shri Atul Mittal, Adv. for complainant.

OP No.1 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.05.2022.

OP No.2 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 11.10.2022.

 

ORDER

 

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2.             Briefly stated, it  is the case of the complainant that complainant purchased a L.E.D. Light Board size 1*4 for a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the OP No.1 vide cash memo No.929 dt. 15.03.2021. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the above said LED light.  The complainant further averred that the OPs No. 1 & 2 also given a warranty of one year on the said LED Light. The complainant further averred that the said LED light have some hanging problem from the very beginning. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to do the needful and had got registered the complaint on dt. 12.08.2021.  OP No.2 repair the said LED light after 20 days after many requests.  The complainant further averred that said LED light having same problem again on dt. 04.12.2021.  The complainant had requested the OP No.1 to do the needful and had got registered the complaint on dt. 04.12.2021. OP No.2 repair the said LED light after 10 days after many request.   The complainant further averred that after some days, the LED light again having some manufactured problem and therefore, the complainant again requested to repair/change the same, however, the OPs No. 1 & 2 has refused to repair the same and also to change the same. The complainant had requested the OPs to do the needful and had got registered the complaints, but all in vain. There is clear cut deficiency in  The complainant reported the said matter to the Ops No. 1 & 2, however, the OP No.1 told him that some water in that Led light and also told that the said Led light become out of warranty.  Hence, this complaint.

 

3.             On notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 17.05.2022 and 11.10.2022 respectively by this Commission.

4.             In support of his case, the counsel for the complainant tendered in ex parte evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence on 24.04.2024.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the case file as well carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased a L.E.D. Light Board size 1*4 for a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the OP No.1 vide cash memo No.929 dt. 15.03.2021. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the above said LED light.  The counsel for the complainant further argued that the OPs No. 1 & 2 also given a warranty of one year on the said LED Light. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the said LED light have some hanging problem from the very beginning. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to do the needful and had got registered the complaint on dt. 12.08.2021.  OP No.2 repair the said LED light after 20 days after many requests.  The counsel for the complainant further argued that said LED light having same problem again on dt. 04.12.2021.  The complainant had requested the OP No.1 to do the needful and had got registered the complaint on dt. 04.12.2021. OP No.2 repair the said LED light after 10 days after many request.   The complainant further averred that after some days, the LED light again having some manufactured problem and therefore, the complainant again requested to repair/change the same, however, the OPs No. 1 & 2 has refused to repair the same and also to change the same. The complainant had requested the OPs to do the needful and had got registered the complaints, but all in vain. There is clear cut deficiency in  The complainant reported the said matter to the Ops No. 1 & 2, however, the OP No.1 told him that some water in that Led light and also told that the said Led light become out of warranty.

7.             To substantiate its claim, complainant has adduced evidence as Ex.C1 to Ex. C3. The OPs did not appear before this Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte. The evidence of the complainant is unrebutted ad unchallenged. The oral as well as documentary evidence placed on the record proves the case of the complainant.            

8.             As a sequel to our foregoing discussion, OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- along with 9% penal interest from the date of the purchase of the said LED to the complainant by the OPs within 45 days from today till its realization. The complaint is accepted with costs, which is assessed Rs.11,000/-.

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which sha-ll not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced: 25.09.2024

                                                       (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                               President,

                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

(Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

Member                   Member