Delhi

East Delhi

CC/553/2016

APARNA SACHDEVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MITASHI - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 553/16

 

Ms. Aparna Sachdeva

Flat No. 710, Vrindavan Green, Plot no. 20-21

Dhanpat Colony,

Sahibabad, UP- 201005

….Complainant

Vs.    

 

1. Mitashi Edutainment (P) Ltd.

414-424 B Wing Bhawaeshwar Arcade

LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (W),

Mumbai (Maharastra) 400086

 

2. Mitashi Service Centre

F-5124, Aditya Tower Building 

Near V3S Mall, Nirman Vihar

Laxmi Nagar- 110092

 

3. B&A Trading Co.

Krishna Banquet Hall

D-34 Main Road, Kanti Nagar, Delhi-110051

                                                                                 …Opponents

           

Judgement Reserved on: 05.09.2019              

Judgement Passed on: 18.09.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

           Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Ms. Aparna Sachdeva, the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against Mitashi Edutainment (P) Ltd, (OP-1); Mitashi Service Centre, (OP-2); the authorized service and B&A Trading Co., (OP-3) the Retailer.

           Briefly stated facts of the present complaint are that complainant on 24.06.2014 purchased Mitashi TV (LED) from OP-3. The complainant was assured of the quality of the said LED TV, which was under 3 years guarantee. Believing the assurance of the representative, the complainant purchased Model                              No. MIDE050V05FHD  for Rs. 40,888/- + VAT 12.5%, which was delivered on the same day by OP-3.

           It has been stated that the said LED TV had display, sound and many other problems right from the very first day of purchase, for which OP-2 was informed. On 15.01.2016, complaint was registered which OP-2 vide complaint no. 1210, thereafter on 16.01.2016, one representative of OP-2, namely, Mr. Manoj inspected the said LED and took away certain parts of the same. Since, the said LED TV was not repaired, Legal Notice dated 02.02.2016 was sent to the OPs.

Again, on 12.02.2016 the above mentioned Mr. Manoj contacted the complainant and received the TV. On 15.02.2016, the above mentioned LED TV was replaced but the complainant accepted the same under protest as the replaced product was made in ‘China’ and original LED was made in ‘Thailand’. The complainant has further stated that the quality of the replaced product was inferior and the complainant started facing issues with the poor picture quality.

           Legal Notice dated 26.02.2016, was sent to OPs demanding refund of the cost of the LED TV as the replaced product was also not working properly.

           Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint alongwith prayer for holding OPs jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 45,999/-; compensation for harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- cost of litigation.

           The complainant has annexed the copy of the Voter ID Card, copy of invoice issued by OP-3 of date 24.06.2014, copy of warranty card, e-mails exchanged with the OP-2, service call sheet date 15.01.2016, receipt pertaining to replacement of LED TV, which of date 12.02.2016, service call sheet of 12.02.2016, letter of confirmation dated 15.02.2016 and Legal Notices to OPs of date 02.02.2016 and 26.02.2016 alongwith postal receipts has been annexed with the complaint.

           OP-3 was served but none appeared on their behalf despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte.

           Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 upon service of the summons in the present complaint, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such; as the Forum did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate present complaint; there was mis-joinder of parties as OP-2 was a service centre of OP-1 and there was no privity of contract with the complainant.

           It was submitted that OP-1 being a well known name enjoyed goodwill in electronic market for service and quality. It was submitted that it was OP-3, who had provided three years guarantee and the complainant had purchased the said LED TV after comparison with other brands. It was admitted that the original LED TV was replaced with the product made in China, however, it was submitted the comparison of both the product was irrelevant as OP has their own system and quality control. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect problem in the replaced LED TV. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

           Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 and OP-2 was filed by complainant, where they have stated that OP-2 being an authorized service centre of OP-1 was working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus, this Forum is competent to adjudicate the present complaint. Rest of the contents of the Written Statement  have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.

           Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant, where she has deposed on oath. The complainant has got exhibited the copy of the bill as Ex. PW1/1, copy of service call sheet dated 15.01.2016 as Ex. PW1/2, copy of Legal Notice dated 02.02.2016 as Ex. PW1/3, copy of service call sheet dated 12.02.2016 as Ex. PW1/4, Legal Notice dated 26.02.2016 for refund of the cost of the LED TV alongwith postal receipt has been exhibited as Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7 respectively.

          OP-1 and OP-2 did not file their evidence by way of affidavit despite several opportunities, hence, their right to file evidence was closed.

          We have heard the submissions on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant is aggrieved by the non-working of the original LED TV purchased by her on 24.06.2014, which was eventually replaced with another LED TV on 12.02.2014, which was accepted by the complainant under protest. The said receipt is Ex. PW1/4. The complainant has alleged that there are major manufacturing defects in the replaced LED TV, though has placed no document on record to support her allegations.

As OP-1 and OP-2 chose not to file their evidence their defence cannot be taken into consideration, thus, the testimony of complainant, which has gone un-rebutted have to be relied upon. Though OP-1 has replaced the LED TV but that is not as per the satisfaction of the complainant and even the replaced LED TV has poor picture quality, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem fit that complainant is awarded the cost of the LED TV i.e. Rs. 45,999/-. We also award Rs. 7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment. OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.  

The order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by OPs else Rs. 53,499/- (Rs. 45,999/- + Rs.7,500/-) shall carry interest @7% per annum from the date of order till realization.

           Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

     

  (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                       (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

         Member                                                                                             Member

   

                                                   (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                        President