Haryana

Panchkula

CC/115/2018

GAURAV ANAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

21 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	115 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	14.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.05.2019

 

Gaurav Anand S/o Sh. Vijay Anand, R/o #400, Sector 12A, Panchkula.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Micromax, Head Office:- Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurugram 122015.

 

2. Guru Kirpa Air Condition, SCF 28, New Defence Colony, Behind Lucky Dhaba, Zirakpur 140603.                                                                        

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 22.03.2019.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2018.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that on 20.10.2016, the complainant purchased a LED TV set make Micromax 32 TSD6150FHD 81 cm (32) from OP No.1 through online website Snapdeal.com vide Invoice No.S264D5/16-17/4867 for an amount of Rs.15990/- having 1+2 years extended warranty; but the said LED TV’s display malfunctioned so the complainant registered a complaint with the OP No.1 on 14.11.2017 bearing No.HR141117-1766841 and accordingly, a telephonic service message was received vide which OP No.2 directed to attend the complainant’s complaint. Representative of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and after inspection of said LED TV and relevant documents told the complainant they would order the defective spare with OP No.1 and after receipt of same the part will be replaced. Thereafter, no action was taken by the OPs and told the complainant that this part was not available being made by the company due to old model of LED TV and if the company made the said part, the same will be replaced. After many telephonic requests and email, OP No.1 finally got replaced the part after a lapse of one month on 15.12.2017; but the repaired part worked only five months and became non-functional. The part which replaced by OPs again malfunctioned in first week of March 2018. The complainant again registered a complaint with the OP No.1 on 06.04.2018 bearing No.HR-060418-1935126. Upon which again OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant as per the direction of OP No.1, who after inspected the said LED TV and relevant documents told the complainant that they would order the defective spare with the OP No.1 and after receipt of same the part would be replaced; but after more than three months of registering the complaint and after making various calls and emails, no action was taken by the OPs; this act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 and 2 through registered post (vide registered post No.RH373987628IN on 13.02.2019 to OP No.1 and registered post No.CH054778249IN on 17.10.2018 to OP No.2, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 and 2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 and 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 22.03.2019 and 21.11.2018, respectively.

3.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.     We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

        It is evident that the complainant purchased a LED TV set brand name Micromax 32 TSD6150FHD 81 cm (32)- from OP No.1 on 20.10.2016  through online website Snapdeal.com vide Invoice No.S264D5/16-17/4867 for an amount of Rs.15990/- having 1+2 years extended warranty. The complainant faced the problems with regard to display of the said TV in the month of November 2017 and in this regard lodged a complaint with OP No.1, who directed the OP No.2 to attend the complaint as is evident from Annexure C-2. We also find that the defective part i.e. back light penal of the LED TV was not working and was replaced on 15.12.2017. The complainant again faced the display problem of the said TV and consequently lodged the complaint with the OP No.1, who directed the OP No.2 to attend the complaint as is evident from Annexure C-4. We find that the complainant remained in constant touch with the OPs w.e.f.02.05.2018 to 14.05.2018 as is well proved by the details of calls history as contained in Annexure C-5. Further, we come across mail conversation between the parties on 12.06.2018 Annexure C-6 as contained in 10.05.2018 Annexure C-8, 15.05.2018 and 16.05.2018 but the defects in the LED TV were not rectified by the OPs. Finding no response from the OPs, the complainant has approached this Forum.   

5.     During arguments the complainant reiterated the facts and version as contained in the complaint, affidavit Annexure CA and document Annexure C-1 to C-9 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.     The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure CA, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9.

7.     In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. With regard to liability of the OP No.1 we may rely upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, West Bangal in case titled as Printer Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kartick Chandra Das and others., 2017(3) CLT 411, wherein it has been held that the dealer is equally responsible along with manufacturer to supply the defect free goods to the consumers so that the later get proper value of their hard-earned money. Thus, we hold that both the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the deficient services rendered by them to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

Regarding relief we find that the complainant purchased another LED TV make Mi LED Smart TV 4X Pro 138.8 cm 55 with Android for an amount of Rs.39,999/- as is evident from Annexure C-9. Needless to mention here that LED TV now a days is not a luxury item but it is a necessity of the modern life.

8.     As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. To refund the cost price of the said LED TV i.e. Rs.15,990 /- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization subject to the submission of  the LED set in question by the complainant with the OPs.

 

2. The Ops shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

9.     The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced

21.05.2019      Dr.Sushma Garg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                            Member              Member                              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President