Complainant Nand Kishore vide the present complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties either to exchange Hyundai LED with new one or repair it as soon as possible, he has already suffered 6 months physical and mental agony. He is unable to use his Hyundai LED
for which he had spent Rs.43,500/-, therefore he is entitled for Rs.20,000/- for harassment alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased Hyundai LED of 43” (Inch) vide bill dated 30.10.2016 for Rs.43,500/- from the opposite parties. Five years guarantee was given by the opposite party no.2. The abovesaid LED went out of order on September 2018 due to some technical faults and he approached to the opposite party no.2 for repair. Opposite party no.2 contacted with the opposite party no.3 telephonically and registered a complaint. Thereafter, employees of the opposite party no.3 visited the house of the complainant and took Hyundai LED for repair and it kept it for two months for the sake of repair and returned the LED with the pretext that they repaired his LED and repair cost was Rs.1900/-. The complainant was surprised that how opposite party no.3 could charge Rs.1900/- when Hyundai LED was within guarantee. He has next pleaded that he used the abovesaid LED for 1-2 hours on same day. Thereafter, again LED went out of order in same condition. He again approached to the opposite party no.2 and 3 for repair, but they put the matter pending with one pretext or the other and still they are not paying any heed towards his grievance. Moreover, he also lodged several complaints on the online portal of the opposite party no.1, but till today all in vain. Hence, this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply through his counsel taking the preliminary objection that the present application is legally not maintainable against opposite party no.2 in the present form as such the same was liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that it was incorrect that at the time of purchase of the Hyundai LED, the opposite partyno.2 had given 5 years guarantee. However, it was correct that the LED had been out of order on September 2018 and the complainant approached to the opposite party no.2 for repair and opposite party no.2 contacted with the opposite party no.3 telephonically and registered a complaint of the complainant with the opposite party no.3. It was next submitted that the guarantee was given by opposite party no.3 and it was the responsibility of the opposite party no.3 to repair the LED within guarantee. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. On 15.4.2019 Sh.Ajay Sharma, Adv. Appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed vakalatnama. Written reply to the main complaint was filed on 20.5.2019. On 26.11.2019, case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.2, therefore, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte. Ld.counsel for the complainant was directed to file correct address of opposite party no.1 and 3 but he availed many opportunities and did not file any correct address. Therefore, present complaint against opposite party no.1 and 3 was dismissed vide order dated 30.12.2019.
5. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1 alongwith Photostat copy of bill dated 30.10.2016.
6. We have carefully gone through the exparte pleadings of counsel for the complainant; arguments advanced by its respective counsel and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice whereby which the complainant purchased one HYUNDAI LED on 30.10.2016 vide invoice No.564 for a sum of Rs.43,500/- from opposite party no.2. The complainant has alleged that the said LED was under five year warranty. It is further alleged that the said LED went out of order in the month of September 2018 and the complainant approached opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 contacted opposite party no.3 and got the complaint registered. Opposite party no.3 repaired the LED of the complainant and charged Rs.1900/- for the repair. After using the LED for 1-2 hours it again went out of order and the complainant approached opposite party no.2 and 3 but they kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.
8. Today during the course of arguments the complainant has produced the warranty card of the Hyundai LED whereby the said LED was under three years warranty. LED in question was purchased on 30.10.2016 and the problem occurred in the LED in the month of September 2018. Hence the problem occurred during the warranty period and the opposite parties were bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
9. As an upshot of aforesaid discussions, we partly allow the complaint directing opposite party no.2 to rectify the problem in the LED by repairing the same free of costs and make the LED functional. Opposite party no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
10. Order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
(Neelam Gupta)
President
Announced: (Jyotsna)
June 23, 2021 Member
*MK*
