Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/525/2014

Pardeep Kumar S/o Madan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Geeta Eletronic - Opp.Party(s)

Virender Saini

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No: 525  of 2014.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 19.12.2014.

                                                                                               Date of decision: 7.9.2015

Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of Village & Post Office Sadhaura, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Geeta Electronics, 69, 76, Shivaji Market Shivaji Chowk, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ Partner.   
2. M/s Videocon India Pvt. Ltd. 15 KM Stone, Aurangabad Pattan Road, Village Chitgaon, Paluka Pattan, Aurangabad-431105, Maharashtra through its Managing Director.    

 

                                                                                                                                                                                           …Opposite parties.

                        Complaint under section 12 of            

                        the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Virender Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               OPs already ex-parte.   

             

 

ORDER

 

1                      Complainant Pardeep Kumar  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund the sale price of LED TV 42” bearing Model No. V-JE-42FH-KXA make Videocon to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by him due to negligence and deficiency in service on their part and also to pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one LED 42” bearing Model No. V-JE-42FH-KXA Make Videocon from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs. 38000/- vide Bill No. 85 dated 26.4.2014. The aforesaid LED was carrying a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and the said LED did not work properly from the very beginning and just after three months the said LED started giving problem of picture and even there is a sound problem in the said LED and the same is lying shut down since more than 4-5 months and there is a manufacturing defect in the said LED TV. The complainant made several complaints with the OP No.2 vide complaint Nos. 239359783, 239525735, 239721529 and 244926478 dated 23.7.2014, 24.7.2014, 25.7.2014 and 23.8.2014 respectively but inspite of aforesaid complaints no body has come to redress the grievances of the complainant but the OP No.2 always gave false assurances to the complainant that they will replace the LED TV with new one, but of no use. Finding no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs on 24.9.2014 through his counsel and requested the OP to immediately replace the LED TV with new one and also to pay sufficient compensation and after receiving the aforesaid notice, OP No.1 contacted the complainant and assured that he will replace the said LED TV with new one within a  short period but of no use. Thereafter, complainant purchased an another LED TV of another company so the complainant does not want to replace the said LED TV and wants to get the full price of aforesaid LED TV alongwith interest. As such, it is quite clear that there is a manufacturing defect in the LED in question and the OPs have supplied a defective LED to the complainant by adopting unfair trade practices and has caused mental agony and harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service through registered post whereas summon issued to OP No.2 received back with the report of “refusal” and as such they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.2.2015. 

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill dated 26.4.2014 as Annexure C-1, Postal receipt as Annexure C-2, Copy of registered AD Legal notice as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. From the perusal of Annexure C-1, it is admitted on record that the complainant had purchased LED TV from the OP No.1 vide invoice No. 85  dated 26.4.2014- for a sum of Rs. 38000/- and as alleged by the complainant the same became defective from the very beginning  and the defects could not be rectified by the Ops despite various efforts.  Further, from the perusal of Annexures C-2 & C-3, it is clear that the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs on 24.9.2014 through his counsel but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the LED in question supplied to the complainant was defective and in this regard he made complaints to the OP No.2 vide complaint No. 239359783, 239525735, 239721529 and 244926478 dated 23.7.2014, 24.7.2014, 25.7.2014 and 23.8.2014 respectively but inspite of aforesaid complaints, they failed to rectify the defects in the LED in question.  The complainant contacted OP No.1 several times and requested him to refund the full price of the aforesaid LED TV alongwith interest but he totally refused to listen to his genuine request. As the LED in question was within warranty period, so, having no other alternative, the complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum for redressal of his grievances.  Moreover, the version of the complainant goes unrebutted as opposite parties have failed to defend their case.

6.                     From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that the OPs have supplied the defective LED in question to the complainant and defect occurred in the aforesaid LED within three month from its purchase as alleged by the complainant Ist complaint was made on 23.7.2014 which shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the LED in question. The main purpose of the product such like LED (TV) in question is to provide entertainment, news etc.  and when it stopped working then very purpose of the product is defeated. The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, LED (TV) has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer. Whenever any consumer, who buys a new product, he is under the impression that the same is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new product would be defect free. A new product could be defective as well. It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others, which substantially impair use of the product. If the product is defective, a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of the defects or its cause or source. The warranty which is given for a product is for whole of the product and when it is found that the product does not perform properly, the warranty would be taken to have been breached, even if no individual part could be identified as defective.  The Consumer Forum has, however, to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well. After all complainant had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hopping that the same is dependable and trouble free.

7.                     In this complaint also, complainant has suffered lot of problem on various dates as alleged by him and had made complaints No. 239359783, 239525735, 239721529 and 244926478 dated 23.7.2014, 24.7.2014, 25.7.2014 and 23.8.2014 respectively . Moreover, the version of the complainant duly supported by affidavit Annexure CW/A goes unrebutted as OPs have failed to defend the case and we have no option except to accept the complaint of the complainant.

8.                     After going through the above noted facts, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  So, in the interest of justice, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to replace the LED(TV) in question of the complainant with new one having same price. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  Announced: 7.9.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.