Complainant Manoj Dhiman has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to deliver the amount of Rs.21,495/- alongwith interest. Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that on 15.3.2016, he visited the show room of opposite party and purchased the LCD Panasonic (HD) vide invoice billing. They assured that LCD will be fixed by himself only and he has paid all the amount on the same day but the opposite party did not install the LCD and the same was fixed by the local Mechanic. After 10/15 days LCD become unserviceable then online complaint was lodged by him, but they told it is not registered with Panasonic Company by opposite party. Then he approached the opposite party and they told to bring the LCD at Pathankot Showroom and opposite party guaranteed that it will be repaired within 10/15 days but instead of 10/15 days the opposite party has taken 2 and half month time. He visited the showroom numbers of time, finally opposite party fixed the LCD at his native place, but in place of Panasonic LCD opposite party fixed old one Toshiba LCD, then he again visited the opposite party to replace the LCD of Panasonic instead of Toshiba. Again opposite party lingering the matter and give not heed to his request and get the service of the opposite party. He approached so many time to the opposite party  and requested to replace the Panasonic LCD but they have not changed his LCD. The act and conduct of the opposite party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complain is not maintainable in the present Forum and is without any merits and without any cause of action against the opposite party and the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased one Panasonic LCD from the opposite party alongwith some other electronic items. The opposite party at the time of the purchase of the LCD had directed the complainant to get the LCD installed from the helpline no. mentioned on the box of the LCD and not from some local person but the complainant had got the LCD installed from some other local person and after some time some problem developed in the LCD of the complainant and he came to the shop of the opposite party and requested him to get the LCD repaired and on that the opposite party directed the complainant to approach the service center of the Panasonic company but complainant insisted the opposite party to himself get the LCD repaired from the concerned service  center and thereafter the complainant also requested the opposite party to get installed  some other LCD in his house till the time his LCD was repaired from the service center and on that  as a good gesture the opposite party got installed one Toshiba LCD from his display counter at the home of the complainant for the time being. It was next submitted that once the minor defect in the Panasonic LCD of the complainant was removed the opposite party many time requested the complainant to return the LCD of the opposite party and take his LCD but the complainant himself kept on lingering the matter and when in the month of June 2016 the representative of the opposite party again visited the place of the complainant, the complainant showed his intention that he wants to keep the Toshiba LCD or the opposite party shall give a brand new Panasonic LCD but the opposite party tired to make him understand that there was difference in the rates of both LCD's and demand made by the complainant cannot be fulfilled and on that the complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Opposite party did not pay costs and produced their evidence. Case called several times, but none had come present on their behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.9.2017.

6.    We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the complainant) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the intentional absence/optional ex-parte proceedings by the titled opposite party after recording attendance to file the written statement; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

7.       We find that the complainant had purchased (affidavit Ex.C1) one LCD of Panasonic Make vide Invoice # 21516 dated 15.03.2016 (Ex.C2) for Rs 44,200/- carrying ‘five-year’ replacement warranty etc as duly indicated on the Bill, itself. However, the LCD went ‘out of order’ with defective working and also lacked in measures of ‘standard cum quality’ with those assured/advertised. The complainant had approached the opposite party, many a time, with his instant grievance but found no permanent relief at his hands by way of replacement/refund and thus had prompted the present complaint.

8.       We find that the complainant’s consumer rights have indeed been determined since the Opposite Party vendor had intentionally opted for ex-parte proceedings after having once appeared to file ‘written-statement’ etc and thus going by the old accepted norms vide which it can be judicially presumed that the titled opposite party never had any valid defense to prosecute/ plead in its support.

9.       No doubt, we shall be at a judicious discretionary liberty to draw an adverse ‘judicial inference’ by virtue of a plethora of superior courts judgments that the ex-parte litigants do not have ‘defense’ to prosecute and thus they instead prefer to go ‘ex-parte’. The above legal proposition holds true since more than a century old legal history of Indian law and its collateral jurisprudence. However, we (in line with the settled law) are inclined to subject the ‘award’ to the restrictions of ‘moderation’ so as not to cause undue enrichments to the ‘awardee’ and/or to cast undue excessive ‘distresses’ to the delinquent party.           

10.     In the light of the all above, we find the hue of actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party vendor to replace (free of any cost) the mal-functioning defective LCD (in question) with a new/fresh piece of LCD of similar Make and specifications and in perfect working order to the complainant besides to pay him Rs 5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of these orders otherwise the opposite party shall be solely liable to refund the full purchase price of the LCD (in question) with interest @ 9% PA from the date of purchase till actual payment along with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- .   

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

January, 10 2018                                                    Member

*MK*