District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.345/2019.

 Date of Institution: 15.07.2019.

Date of Order: 05.09.2022.

Deepak Kumar S/o late Shri Suresh Singh aged about 33 years resident of  House No. 317, East Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad – 121004, Haryana, Aadhar No. 617759918706.                                                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                Mr. Sanjay  proprietor of M/s. fine Electronics, Shop No.5, Main Bazar, Ambedkar Chowk, Ballabgarh, Faridabad – 121004, Haryana.

2.                Mr. Kesharmal Gandhi/Mr. Vishnu Achyut Mulay/Mr. Deepak Singh Ganpat Singh Rajput/Mr. Sunil Madhukar Deshpande/Mr. Kiran Radhakrihan Patwardhan Directors of M/s. Tekcare India Private Limited, Shop – 171C, Floor-17, Plot -224, C-Wing, Mittal court Jamnalal, Bajaj Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra.

3.                Videocon Industries Ltd., through its Directors, Videocon Tower, Block E-3, Jhandewalan Extension, Jhandewalan, New Delhi – 110 005.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Kr. Mukesh Singh,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Opposite party No.1 exparte vide order dated 5.8.2022.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 01.08.2019.

                             Opposite party No. 3 exparte vide order dated 28.02.2022.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had purchased one Videocon LED 40” and one LG air-condition alongwith stabilizer from opposite party No.1 with consideration of INR 54,500/-The opposite party No.1 gave the three years warranty  of Videocon LED 40” and one year warranty for LG air condition and gave assurance to the complainant that in future all warranty related or replacement related services would be done by him.  From the beginning Videocon LED 40” was not properly working, in this regard the complainant approached to the opposite party No.1 several times and inform the same to the opposite party No.1 and finally he called the service engineer from M/s. Tekcare India Private Limited and they replace some parts in LED vide job card/receipt No. 1702 dated 06.07.2018.  After repair LED working only few days and stop working, in this regard complainant again approached to opposite party No.1 and opposite party NO.2 personally as well as on call.  Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 assured to the complainant that the repair/replacement of LED would do soon.  After vigorious follow up with opposite party No.1, he called the service engineer of opposite party No.1 and finally opposite party No.2 accepted that the LED would  not work in future also and it would not repairable hence they would replace it.  Opposite party No.2 took the old LED from complainant home with charges of INR 1000 on13.11.2018 and gave the replacement receipt and gave the assurance to the complainant that the replacement would do within 15 days working days.  After lapse of 15 days the complainant approached to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 several times and request him to replacement LED but always the opposite parties avoided it on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                pay to the complainant the visiting charges INR 5,000/-.

b)                replace LED with new one.

 c)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

d)                 pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the LED in question was sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant vide Bill No. 34131 dated 05.06.2016 if any dispute arises between the complainant and opposite parties it should be within three years as per the limitation Act.   It was submitted that the manufacturer of the LED in question as Vidocon company and opposite party No.1 was only the shop keeper and he sold the goods on behalf of the manufacturer i.e. Videocon was responsible if any defect in the sold items and the answering opposite party was not responsible for the defect came in the sold items.  The answering opposite party gave all the documents of warranty etc. to the complainant at the time of delivery of  the LED in question.  Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations

3.                Registered notice was sent to opposite party No.2 on 20.07.2019 received back with the report of ‘Refusal’.  Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.  Therefore, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.08.2019.

3.                Notice issued to opposite party No.3 dated 4.2.2022 not received back either served or unserved.  One month period had been expired.  Hence, opposite party No.3 was hereby proceed against ex-parte vide order dated 28.02.2022.

4.                The complainant led evidence in support of  his respective version.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Fine Electronics & Ors. with the prayer to: a)  pay to the complainant the visiting charges INR 5,000/-. b)      replace LED with new one. c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment d)  pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit  of Shri Deepak Kumar,, Ex.C-1 – invoice,, Ex. C-2 – job card, Ex.C-3 – job card., Ex.C-4 – order dated  24.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission.

7.                It is evident from Ex.C-1 that  the complainant had purchased one Videocon LED 40” and one LG air-condition alongwith stabilizer from opposite party No.1 with consideration of INR 54,500/- with warranty of Videocon LED 40” and one year warranty for LG air condition   From the beginning Videocon LED 40” was not properly working, in this regard the complainant approached to the opposite party No.1 several times and inform the same to the opposite party No.1 and finally he called the service engineer from M/s. Tekcare India Private Limited and they replace some parts in LED vide job card/receipt No. 1702 dated 06.07.2018. vide Ex.C-2.  After repair of LED, it was working only few days and stop working, in this regard deponent again approached to Mr. Sanjay proprietor of M/s. Fine Electronics as well as M/s. tekcare India Private Limited who is the authorized repair centre, both assured to the complainant that the repair/replacement of LED would do soon and finally M/s. tekcare India Private Limited took the old LED from complainant home with charges of INR 1,000 on 13.11.2018 and gave the replacement receipt of complainant and gave the assurance to the complainant that the replacement would be done within 15 working days  but till date neither LED repair  nor replace vide Ex.C-3.

8.                There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties have rendered deficient services to the complainant.

9.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite  parties are directed to replace the LED in question   with a new one of the same value. Old LED in question is kept with M/s. Tekcare India Private ltd. Vide Ex.C3.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as  compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 05.09.2022                                  (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.