BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ravinder Kumar, #416, Phase-II, Bhapudham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]       M/s Next Retail Shop, SCO No.317-318, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Owner.

2]       Videocon Service Centre, SCO No.80-81-82, IInd Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

3]       Videocon Industries Ltd., 14 KM Stone Paithan Road Chitegaon, Tp. Paithan Aurangabad, through its MD/Director/GM

                                                ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                          PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL                           MEMBER

                   DR. (MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Krishan Singla, Adv. for complainant.

None for OP No.1.

Sh.Simranjeet Singh, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

PER SHRI RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER 

          Succinctly put, the LCD purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 9.5.2009 for Rs.10,000/- vide Ann.C-1 was giving problems like non-clarity, half-screen off from bottom of LCD, non-brightness and malfunctioning of speakers etc., so a complaint No.247, dated 14.5.2009 was lodged with OP No.1, who promised to send its representative but no one was sent for attending the said complaint for about two months inspite of making several requests.  Ultimately, OP No.1 gave the Service Centre address of OP No.2 with whom the complainant also lodged a complaint on 14.7.2009 but they too did not send their representative or mechanic to check & rectify the defects in the LCD and therefore, the complainant had to sent a legal notice to the OPs but to no avail.  Even an e-mail was also sent in this respect to OP No.3 i.e. manufacturer, which too did not yield any result.  It is averred that the LCD is lying in non-workable condition.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot and praying for replacement of defective LCD with new one or to refund the price thereof along with interest and compensation with litigation cost.

2]                OP No.1 filed reply and admitted the sale of the LCD on 9.5.2009 and lodging of first complaint on 14.5.2009.  It is stated that the LCD became defective due to the own negligence of the complainant himself or any of his family members.  It is denied that the LCD was not properly functioning.  It is also stated that the OP No.1 was and is still ready to replace the LCD of the complainant but the same was refused by the complainant on the ground that he should also be given compensation.  Denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

3]                  In the joint reply filed by OPs No.2 & 3, while admitting the sale of LCD, it is submitted that the LCD is working properly and there is no defect in it.  The complaint lodged by the complainant was duly attended to and LCD was found to be in OK condition and therefore, needs no replacement.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations of complainant, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]                We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6]                Annexure C-1 is the copy of bill no. 256837 dated 09.05.2009, which shows that the complainant had purchased a LCD for Rs.10,000/- from OP-1.  The main grouse of the complainant is that the said LCD is malfunctioning, since the date of its purchase and presently it is not in a working condition.  Despite his number of visits and reminders, to the OPs, for defect rectification of the LCD, the OPs are intentionally postponing to attend his complaint on one pretext or the other by giving lame excuses.  On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant allegedly had made the first call on 14.05.2009 for installation of the unit (LCD) and the same was installed to the satisfaction of the complainant.  A complaint was made by the complainant on 14.07.2009 and the same was immediately attended to and thereafter no other fault/problem was ever reported by the complainant.  The OP-1 in preliminary submissions no.3 of his reply has also submitted that they are ready and willing to replace the defective LCD with a new LCD further the OP-1 in para no.2 of the reply has admitted that the complaint was lodged by the complainant on 14.07.2009, which shows that the LCD was not working properly just after two months of its purchase.

7]                In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint must succeed.  Accordingly the complaint is allowed.  The OP-1 is directed to replace the defective LCD in question, with a brand new sealed LCD of same/higher configuration and model with fresh warranty of one year from the date of handing over the LCD to the complainant and the same be supplied to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP-1 would be liable to pay to the complainant the cost of the LCD i.e. Rs.10,000/- alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 09.11.2009, till its realization. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.