Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/559

SURENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HEARING PLUS - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                Date of institution: 15.09.2017

Complaint Case. No.559/17                                          Date of order:      06.08.2018

IN  MATTER OF

Sh. Surendra Singh, BB-50D, Janak Puri Delhi-110058                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Complainant

VERSUS

M/S HEARING PLUS, B-1/637, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058, Opposite Metro Pillar No.563, Near Janak Puri East Metro Station                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Opposite party                                                                                       

                                                        ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        The complaint is filed U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging that the complainant purchased Hearing aid from OP for sale consideration of Rs. 53,450/- vide Annexure A-1 with two years warranty. The Hearing Aid are not suitable to the complainant from inception but the OP insisted that the discomfort is temporary and  after some usage it will go away. The complainant further alleged that after few days one of device developed mechanical fault and was given for repairs to OP under warranty. Then again the other pair developed mechanical fault but the OP refused to repair in warranty period. However later on OP agreed to repair the device and told to wait vide email dated 02.05.2016. But again he suggested to pay Rs. 60,000/- more for another device with changed configuration.    

                        Hence the present complaint for directions to the OP to refund the advance amount of Rs. 53,450/- with interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount with effect from 18.09.2015 till date of realization and Rs. 2,00,000/- causing harassment and mental torture.

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP but none appeared on their behalf. Therefore, OP is proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.02.2018. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence and relied upon EX-P-1 to EX-P-8.

                        From the perusal of the record it revealed that the complainant had purchased hearing aid from the OP and email dated 18.03.2016 reveals  that it was given for repair to OP and  they repaired and returned the same after  a gap of ten days .  After a week another device developed fault  which   was  taken to OP  and this time  OP flatly refused to repair it     without charges. But later on through  e-mail dated 02.05.2016 the OP expressed its willingness  and was  ready to repair the Hearing Aid without charges. But still  failed to do so.  Instead of honouring the   commitment OP resorted  to trickery and  insisted  the complainant to purchase a new device by paying sum of Rs. 60,000/- more.  This clearly indicates the craftiness of OP and deficiency in  service  on their part.  The complainant  has already used  the hearing aid device  approximately for six months. 

                        We have heard  complainant in person and gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

                        After analyzing the version of the complainant  we are of considered view that hearing is indispensible human faculty and deprivation of the same hampers the normal day to day activity of a person. Since one of the device was repaired after ten days we can visualize what bitter experience complainant might have gone through which must have jeopardized his  normal activities.  As stated by complainant  the both devices are still lying with OP  which they had  promised to repair but failed to do so .    Taking Into the consideration the predicament there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complainant has suffered a lot due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

                        Hence in order to do justice to the complainant we are of opinion  that ends of justice would be met if OP is directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- for compensation of hearing aid and award Rs. 5,500/- for mental agony harassment and litigation expenses.     

Order pronounced on :.  06.08.2018

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                              (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                        PRESIDENT