Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/126/2018

VILAKSHANA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

PINKI DEVI

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                498/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    26-03-2018

 Date of Decision      :      03-12-2018

 

Vilakshana Singh,

S/O Late Sh.Jagdish Singh Dogra,

R/O Sidhra By Pass,Opp.Eicher Workshop,

Tehsil & Distt.Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                -Complainant

                  V/S

1.  M/S Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

     Micromax  House 90-B Sector No.18,

    Gurgaon-122015.

2.    M/S CE-Ligitimate Solutions,

   Below Raj Hotel Gurudwara,

   Sunder Singh Road,Jammu-180001.

                                                                                                                                                -Opposite parties

CORAM:-

                  Sunit Gupta        -             (Distt.& Sessions Judge) - President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                              -  Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       -Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Pinki Devi,Advocate for complainant, present .

Nemo for OPs

                                                                      

                                                          ORDER.

 

1.                           Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that: complainant said to have purchased a Full High Definition 32” LED Television bearing model No.32TSD6150FHD for a sale consideration of  Rs.15,999/-through online site Snapdealvide invoice No.S264D5/16-17/7515 and the said LED Television carried  warranty for a period of three years(Copy of email from Snapdeal confirming the order annexed as Annexure-A and copy of invoice annexed as Annexure-B)That since the above said LED Television was purchased from teleshopping website, same was delivered to complainant on,29-12-2016.That in the month of June,2017 the abovesaid LED Television developed a problem and a vertical line started appearing on the screen of the said LED TV purchased by the complainant and the complainant informed the said defect to OP1 through email(copy of email sent by the complainant to OP1 and its reply annexed as Annexure-C).That OP1 sent one of its agent to remove the said defect, but the agent failed to remove the said defect and told him that the main technician in the Service Centre had been operated and is not likely to come to service centre in near future and told him that he would call him whenever the said technician joined office, but the complainant never received any call from the OPs.According to complainant, with the passage of time condition of the abovesaid LED further deteriorated and two vertical lines started appearing on the screen of the said LED Television and on,09-12-2017 complainant took the LED for repairs to OP2 and OP2 received the LED and issued a receipt to him and asked him to come after some days to get the copy of job sheet as their system was not working at that moment(Copy of receipt issued by OP2 is annexed as Annexure-D). That after some days complainant went to the office of OP2 and he was provided a copy of job sheet No.JK-121217-1800655(Copy of job sheet is annexed as Annexure-E).That thereafter complainant paid several visits and made numerous calls to the office of OP2,but the said LED TV was not repaired and in the month of February 2017 the officials of OP2 intimated him that there was a manufacturing defect in the said LED TV and could not be repaired and he also informed that OP1 had stopped manufacturing 32”FHD LED TVs.He further asked complainant to send email to OP1 and on,13-02-2018 he sent an e-mail to OP1 asking OP1 to resolve the problem being faced by him. The OP1 acknowledged the said email and ensured to resolve his problem and the complainant also received a call from the officials of OP1,whereby they informed him that the abovesaid LED TV was beyond repairs and they offered the complainant to replace the FHD television with HD Ready 32”LED TV sold in the name and style Binge Box. The complainant was without TV for a period of three months, as such he agreed to the said proposal and he was informed that he shall be called and accordingly informed as to when he can take the delivery of the said HD Ready 32”LED TV sold in the name and style Binge Box, but the complainant never received any call from the OPs.Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly, approached Ops for replacement of LED Television,however,Ops paid no heed to the grievance of complaint and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service, Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant claimed refund of cost of LED TV to the tune of Rs.15,999/-alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f.09-12-2017 and compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                          Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but they did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, ,therefore, the right of OPs to file written version stood closed on,03-07-2018 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

  3.          The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own evidence affidavit and affidavits of Meenakshi Kotwal, and Vikas Kotwal,respectively.The complainant has placed on record copy of email, copy of retail invoice dated, 18-12-2016,coy of receipt, copy of confirmation slip and copy of complaint against deficiency in service.

     4.                We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

        5.                 From the evidence put forth by the complainant, it is manifestly proved that the complainant had purchased a Full HD 32LED Television with the Trade mark of Micromax for a consideration of Rs.15,999/-through online trading site i.e.Snapdeal.The said LED Television was having an initial warranty of one year which was extendable upto three years. Since the complainant had not applied for extension of warranty as paying extra amount as such we would consider the warranty period as one year only. But within the said warranty period of one year some technical defect was appeared in the said LED TV.A complaint was made with OP No.2 who happened to be the service provider for OP No.1,but his grievance could not be redressed and instead of improving the performance of the functioning of said LED,the condition was becoming bad to worse.Ultimately,the official of OP No.2 had informed the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said LED Television. He was also informed that the OP No.1 I.e. manufacturing company has discontinued the manufacturing of said model. It is also borne out from the soft copies of Emails between the complainant and the C.E.support of OP No.1 that the complainant repeatedly asking the OP No.1 to resolve his issue and on the other hand there was cold response from the Rep.of OP No.1.

              Since the opposite parties have not chose to appear before this Forum and contest this complaint, as such, we have no reason to disbelieve the case of complainant and the evidence produced by him before this Forum.

 7.                  This is a case of deficiency in service. The OPs despite of service of notice sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

8.                After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of his grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

9.     Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of LED TV,i.e.Rs.15,999/- to complainant, who shall return the defective LED TV, alongwith accessories to the opposite parties. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-.The Ops shall comply the order jointly and severally, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                         Sunit Gupta

                                                                    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                          President

Announced                                               District Consumer Forum

03-12-2018                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

      

 Ms.Vijay Angral          

 Member     

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member.