Delhi

North East

CC/277/2016

SANJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

METRO REFRIGERATION & ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 277/16

In the matter of:

 

		Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Singh R/o H.No. B-144, Gali No. 12, Near Mother Dairy Booth, Johripur Extension, Shahdara, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1     2       3	M/s. Metro Ref & Electronics 1449/7, Loni Road, Durgapuri, Delhi-110093   M/s. Sharp Business System India Ltd. FF, 487/35-A, Outer Ring Road, Peeragarhi, New Delhi   M/s. Sharp India Ltd. GAT No. 686/4, Koregaon Bhima, TAL : Shirur, Disttt. Pune, PIN 412216		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		24.10.2016
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		19.09.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		25.09.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the complainant against OPs. On 23.11.2013, the complainant purchased a SHARP LED 32” LE 350M-WH from OP1 for Rs. 24,000/- vide bill No. 2076 with 1+2 years extended warranty. At the time of purchase the complainant was assured of the quality and after sale service by OP1. On 16.09.2015 there was a problem with the LED TV for which complaint was registered with OP1 vide complaint no. 863989, the executives asked the complainant to continue using the LED TV and the same shall be replaced in case the problem increased. It has been further stated that on 31.12.2015, the said LED developed a dark line on screen, thereby causing great displeasure in watching, for which complaint no. 641461 was issued by OP. Finally, on 13.04.2016, the said LED completely stopped working. The service engineer of OP informed complainant that the panel of LED TV was defective which needed replacement. The complainant has stated that the said LED TV is lying with OP since 13.04.2016, and has prayed for directions to OPs to refund of Rs. 24,000/- being the cost of LED TV, alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony, and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation. Complainant has annexed copy of Aadhar Card, Invoice dated 23.11.2013 issued by OP1 and a copy of rough record of complaints made to OP by complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was served on OPs. As none appeared on behalf of OP1 despite service, OP1 was proceeded ex parte. OP2 & OP3 filed their reply wherein they took the defence that the said LED TV was not given to them on 13.04.2016 and whenever, there was any complaint they were promptly attended by OP2 & OP3. Thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed to them. It was stated that LED TV was under 1+2 years warranty, there was complete warranty for one year and subsequently the consumer was to pay service charges besides component charges except for Panel. It was stated that there was a gap of 3 ½ months in the two complaints and the OP was willing to rectify the defect, if any as per terms & conditions. Rest of the contents of complaint were denied.
3. The complainant in his rejoinder denied the contents of reply filed by Op2 & OP3 and contents in the complaint were reiterated.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and OP2. The complainant, Shri Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Surender in its evidence stated that on 16.9.2015 two executives had visited the complainant and repaired the LED TV but the problem could not be rectified properly. Shri Rakesh Verma S/o Shri Virender Kumar Customer Support Engineer of OP, was examined, who deposed the contents of the reply filed by OP2 & OP3.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP2 & OP3 and have perused the material on record. During the course of arguments it has been submitted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant, that the said LED TV was lying at the residence of the complainant. LED is under warranty is an admitted fact by OP2 and OP3. Further, the alleged defect of Panel is covered under the warranty period and OP2 & OP3 are willing to provide service as per warranty terms & conditions. Hence, we direct OP2 & OP3 to repair the said LED TV. We also award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental harassment and agony as the LED TV of complainant was not repaired despite being under warranty, this shall include litigation expenses also. In case of non-compliance the order, the interest @9% shall be charged on compensation amount.
6.  This order be complied within 30 days by OP2 & OP3 from the receipt hereof.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 25.09.2017)          

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member