Haryana

Karnal

CC/276/2019

Rinku - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Om Sai Traders - Opp.Party(s)

S.N Bhardwaj

14 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 276 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.20.05.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 14.12.2021

 

Rinku son of Shri Ramesh Chander, resident of village and Post office Bansa, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s Om Sai Traders, situated at Krishna Market, Gharaunda, District Karnal, through its prop Jatin Kumar.

 

2.     Intex Pvt. Ltd. company, situated at Bhuwan Marketing, 20/46, Aggarwal Bhawan Narayangarh road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, Ambala through its authorized dealer.

 

3.     Intex Pvt. Ltd. Company, situated at Okhala, Phase-II, Noida, through its Manager/Chairperson.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by:   Shri S.N. Bhardwaj, counsel for complainant.

                    None for OP no.1.

Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased one intex LCD 28” and one washing machine from OP no.1, which is manufactured by OP no.3. OP no.2 is authorized dealer all Haryana of the intex company. OP no.1 issued a invoice no.147 dated 16.01.2017 for the amount of Rs.23,500/-. The LCD carried out on three years warranty from the date of purchase. The said LCD did not work properly from the last seven months, its major fault in the said LCD. Complainant approached the OP no.1 for repairing of the defective LCD. OP no.1 sent the complainant to OPs no.2 and 3 for lodging the complaint regarding the defect of said LCD. Thereafter, complainant lodged many complaints to OPs no.2 and 3 in this regard but OPs lingered the matter and not changed/repair the said LCD. Complainant visited the shop of OP no.1 and requested for repair of the LCD. The OP no.1 said the complainant if he want to repair the LCD then he paid Rs.5000/-.  OPs have sold the defective LCD, having manufacturing defect to the complainant as despite repairs, the defect could not be removed. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for replacement of the defective LCD as the same is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and was within warranty period and beyond repairs, but OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded complainant purchased the LCD in question from OP no.1 with the warranty of only one year. The responsibility of providing services of said warranty is only of the OPs no.2 and 3. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 suggested the complainant to visit/approach to OPs no.2 and 3 as it is the responsibility of OPs no.2 and 3 to remove the problems free of cost during the warranty period. It is denied that OP no.1 has demanded Rs.5000/- from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

3.             Despite service, OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 17.09.2019.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rishi pal Ex.CW2/A, bill invoice dated 16.01.2017 Ex.C1, extract of message ExC2 and closed the evidence on 13.12.2019 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 did not led any evidence after availing several opportunities including six last opportunities and the evidence of OP no.1 has been closed by court order, vide order of this Commission dated 17.11.2021.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents placed on file.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant purchased one intex LCD 28” from OP no.1, vide bill invoice no.147 dated 16.01.2017. The LCD carried out on three years warranty from the date of purchase. The said LCD has become defective during the warranty period. Complainant approached the OPs for repair of the LCD in question but OPs failed to repair the same despite their best efforts. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for replacement of the defective LCD as the same is having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and was within warranty period and beyond repair but OPs failed to do so. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Rishipal Ex.CW2/A, copy of bill invoice Ex.C1 and extract of message regarding lodging the complaints to OPs with regard to defective LCD. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OP no.1 did not led  evidence and OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by this Commission, vide order dated 17.09.2019. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  It was the duty of the OPs to repair the LCD in question within warranty period, if it was not repairable then replaced the same but OPs failed to do so. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the LCD in question is having a manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.             During the course of arguments learned counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has purchased a new LCD and now he has no need for the LCD and prayed for refund of the cost of the LCD alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.12,500/- as cost of the LCD in question to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Complainant is also directed to hand over the old LCD in question to the OPs. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.12.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

     Member