Delhi

North East

CC/308/2016

SH. JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AWASTHI ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.308/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Mewa Lal R/o H. No. A-371, Circular Road, main Market, A5 Block, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Awasti Enterprises At A-10, Main 60 Ft. Road, Rajiv Nagar, Near Khajoori Khas Police Station, Delhi-110094.   M/s Sharp India Limited Gate No.m 686/4, Koregaon Bhima, Tal: Shirur Distt. Pune, Pin-412216.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

16.11.2016 05.07.2018 05.07.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The present complaint pertains to the grievance of the complainant in so far as he had purchased a SHARP LED TV model                               No. LC24LE155, serial no. 308713793 manufactured by OP2 on 23.11.2013 for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- paid in cash from OP1 dealer who had assured the complainant that the said LED had three years warranty on it. However, in the month of May 2016, the said LED stop working for which the complainant contacted to the OPs and on 23.05.2016, a TV engineer of OP visited the residence of the complainant but did not repair the said LED and instead asked the complainant to get the picture tube of the LED changed. Thereafter the complainant has submitted that despite regular visits to the office/showroom of the OP and telephonic communication with the OP, the OP failed to repair the said LED which is deliberate and intentional neglect and deficiency of service on the part of OPs. The complainant, being frustrated due to callous and negligent attitude of OP, issued a legal notice dated 02.09.2016 to the OP1 through his counsel however despite service of the same on the OP1 on 03.09.2016 OP1 failed to reply or act upon the same resulting in harassment of the complainant and financial hardship suffered by the complainant for more than eight months till the filing of the present complaint in November 2016. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint for issuance of directions against the OPs for refund of Rs. 16,500/- towards the cost of the said LED, interest @ 18% p.a. on the said sum from the date of loss till the date of payment, Rs. 50,000/- towards damages for harassment, tension and agony undergone by the complainant at the hands of the OPs and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of the litigation.

The complainant has attached zerox copy of the retail invoice / cash memo / bill number nill, serial no. nill (torn) dated 23.11.2013 for purchase of the said LED and copy of unsigned legal notice dated 02.09.2016 to OP1 with CC to OP2.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs wherein OP1 despite service effected on 10.12.2016 failed to appear and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.01.2017. OP2 appeared on 16.12.2016 when the copy of complaint alongwith annexures was handed over to the AR of OP2 for filing of written statement on 13.01.2017. However OP2 failed to appear on the given date and was given last opportunity to file written statement on 24.01.2017 on which date also despite appearance of AR of OP2 it did not file its written statement for which a cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed on OP2 to file its written statement on 09.02.2017. However, OP2 failed to appear during the entire course of days proceeding on 09.02.2017 and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. OP2 moved an application for modification of the above mentioned order on grounds of wrong information of the next date of hearing as 17.02.2017 instead of 09.02.2017 however the Forum does not have power to review its own order and in addition to the fact that the AR of OP2 was present on 24.01.2017 when the cost was imposed on OP2 for filing reply on 09.02.2017 therefore the OP2 cannot take refuge of the internet copy of the order for erroneous date of hearing. Accordingly the said application was dismissed. The written statement was though filed by OP2.
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant on 04.05.2017 and written arguments on 02.11.2017 in which the complainant reiterated his grievance in the present complaint and exhibited the retail invoice bill and prayed for relief sought against the OPs.
4. OP2 in the hearing dated 04.01.2018 had offered to resolve the problem of defective LED of the complainant and had made a statement that on earlier occasion between 2013 to 2015, its service engineers has visited the premises of the complainant to rectify the defect in the LED for which the Forum had directed to OP2 to file a detailed affidavit by way of machinery service report and also directed the complainant to physically take the said LED in question to the service centre of OP2 at Peeragarhi, Delhi for repairs. However, on the subsequent date of hearing i.e. 13.02.2018, the counsel for OP2 submitted that the complainant did not bring the said LED to its service centre to which the complainant stated that since he had already purchased another TV, he was no longer interested in getting the said LED TV in question repaired and therefore no settlement could be effected between the parties. OP2 through its Customer Support Engineer filed an affidavit stating that as per machine history report dated 22.01.2018, the said LED was made OK on 09.02.2015 and the complaint was treated as closed.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have thoroughly perused the material documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties.

The factum of purchase of SHARP LED TV manufactured by OP1 by the complainant is not in dispute. However the complainant has not placed on record the original invoice/ bill, the zerox copy of which is torn from right top end and bottom left end concealing the book number and serial no. PN as also the liability clause. Further the invoice price does not bear any vat or sales tax thereon. The complainant did not disclose that the said LED was repaired earlier on 20.05.2014, 23.01.2015 and lastly on 09.02.2015 which was in fact brought to the notice/knowledge of this Forum by OP2 vide Machine History Report which logically should have been pleaded by the complainant in the complaint instead of making it appear as if the said LED went in state of dysfunctionality after two and half years of purchase for the first time while it was within the alleged cover of three years warranty. The complainant has not placed on record any proof of warranty card or endorsement of three years warranty to substantiate his claim. The complainant was given directions to take the said LED for repair to the workshop of OP2 at the proposal of OP2 which was agreed to by his counsel but the complainant failed to adhere or comply with this Forum’s order. The legal notice purportedly sent by the counsel for the complainant is an unsigned document sent / meant for OP1 and does not invoke any genuineness of claim or varsity of grievance mentioned therein as the same is unsigned. The written statement filed by the OP2 is inadmissible as being time barred and therefore struck off and as its defence stood closed vide order dated 09.02.2017.

We have applied our judicial mind are of considered opinion that the present complaint is devoid of merits and lacking insufficient and cogent documentary evidence in the absence of original bill and warranty card. We therefore are not inclined to entertain the same and dismiss with no order as to cost.

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 05.07.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member