DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 367 of 25.9.2017

                                      Decided on:                  19.7.2018

Arun Sachdeva ( Aged 22 years) son of Baldev Raj Sachdeva , resident of House No.129-A, Heera Nagar, Near Kheda, Ambala City, Ambala now resident of New Partap Colony, Near Mohalla Palwani, Samana, District Patiala (Punjab) (India) Mobile No.80547-29944 Adhar No.9724 2103 1084.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Micromax Informatics Limited, through its Managing Director Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015.

2.       M/s Ravi Electronics, Authorized dealer of Micromax Informatics limited, Microtech & Luminous Inverters, Cinema Road, Samana-147101 District Patiala through its Authorized Signatory/partner.

3.       Micromax Informatics Limited Service Centre, Vanshika service Point, House No.7812/5, Near Tower Near Madhu Nursing Home, Passi Road, Patiala, through its authorized person (Mobile No.95922 55130/98554-33445)

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member         

ARGUED BY

                                      Complainant in person.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1to3 ex-parte.                    

 ORDER

                                    SMT. NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one LED colour Television, model 43” from OP No.2 vide invoice No.1186 dated 27.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.27500/-.It is averred that as the said LED was not working properly, the complainant made request to OP No.2 and on 7.7.2017 he lodged a complaint No.PU NO 0707171517019 requesting the OPs to replace the said LED. The OPs refused to replace the said LED despite several fax messages and telephonic calls. The complainant also visited the show room of OP No.2 personally but to no effect. It is further averred that  since the said LED was within warranty OPs were bound to replace the same which they failed to  do and it amounted to unfair trade practice on their part.As such the compolainant underwent a lot of harassment and also suffered monetary and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OP no.1 appeared through counsel and filed the reply to the complaint whereas OPs no.2&3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
3. In the reply filed by OP No.1, it is clearly stated that the defect in the LED TV occurred due to mishandling by the complainant for which the OP cannot be held responsible.Further it is submitted that the defect, if any, was found in the said LED TV, has already been offered to be cured by the authorized service provider. It is further submitted that the complainant has failed to produce on record  any documentary evidence/proof regarding damage to the LED in  question. As such OP cannot be said to be deficient in service in any way.After denying all the allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 and C2 and closed his evidence.

Whereas counsel for OP No.1 after filing reply to the complaint, did not give evidence despite seeking a few adjournments and ultimately he failed to appear since last seven adjournments.

5. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ex.C1 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one LED TV from OP No.2 on 27.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.27,500/-.On 7.7.2017 he lodged a complaint with the OPs vide complaint No. PU NO 0707171517019 regarding non working of the said LED which shows that the defect occurred in the said LED TV during warranty period. In the reply filed by OP No.1, it is submitted that the OP is ready to repair/replace the faulty part of the LED TV.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.1&3 to rectify the defect in the LED TV as per the warranty terms and conditions. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 19.7.2018      

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh               Neelam Gupta 

                                           Member                                       Member