Complainant Diksha Mahajan has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P. Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace with new LED/TV. Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment including Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       Complainant purchased Mircro Max 43A7200MHD/43x6300MHD109cm (43inches) Full HD LED with MHL and Bluetooth Technology for Rs.24,300/- on 31.12.2015 through online agency Amazone.in of the opposite parties. Copy of invoice is attached as Annexure-I. The TV developed technical snag in March, 2017 i.e. about 14 months from its purchase. Complainant lodged complaint with the opposite parties and mechanic was deputed to the house of the complainant to check the LED/TV. Mechanic reported that few parts have become defective and new parts will be brought from store in Delhi.

3.       Mechanic came with new parts and installed in LED/TV but it did not work. Then mechanic told that there is about Rs.20,000/- expenditure to bring the LED/TV in order and complainant will have to pay for it.

4.       Complainant made a telephonic call to the Executive of the opposite parties Mr.Rana regarding this issue but desired results were not achieved. A written complaint was sent through registered post to opposite party No.2 on 15.04.2017 (Annexure-2 & Annexure-3). Even after four months opposite parties did not repair the LED/TV. It is due to poor quality of the LED manufacturer that it went defective just two months after the expiry of warranty and there is no mechanism left to redress my grievance, hence this complaint.

5.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party No.1. Opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.10.2017. But on 10.01.2018 Sh.Dheeraj Kumar Advocate had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and filed vakalatnama and joined the proceedings of this case by moving the application and also filed written reply on behalf of opposite party No.1 stating therein that the answering opposite parties is the company of international reputation and is committed to provide products of international standard to its customers. Company had deputed mechanic through authorized service centre but complainant did not get LED/TV repaired for reasons best known to her. The LED/TV carries the warranty of one year from the date of purchase and the same had lapsed. So, the company is not liable to replace/repair the faulty LED/TV. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

6.       Notice of the complaint was also issued to the opposite party No.2 but they did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.01.2018.

7.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

8.     Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has also tendered into evidence affidavit of Asad Shakeel Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

9.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant and written arguments also not filed by the parties.

10.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the parties, oral arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

11.     The present LED/TV purchased by the complainant from opposite parties through online mode was rendered defective after about 14 months from its purchase. Opposite parties failed to repair the LED/TV within a reasonable time and cost and it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to replace the same. 

12.      From the above discussion the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to replace the LED/TV in question of the complainant with new one of same size and similar features or refund the full price amount which was paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing the LED/TV. The opposite parties are further directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of harassment and litigation. The entire exercise shall be completed by the opposite parties within 45 days from the receipt of copy of orders failing which the above said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till its realization.

13.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

14.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                              

                                                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                   President  

Announced:                                          (R.S.Sukhija)

OCT 28, 2022                                              Member

*YP*