BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.56 of 2019
Date of Instt. 26.02.2019 Date of Decision: 22.12.2020
Karan Roy aged about 45 years son of Sh. Daljit Roy R/o H. No.WX-255, Basti Nau, Backside Arya Kanya School, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sansui, Plot No.248 (1st & 2nd Floor), Udyog Vihar, Phase- IV, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015, through its Mg. Directro/Authorized Person.
2. M/s Cool Care Centre, VPO Reru, Near Pathankot Bye Pass Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Prop. G. S. Bhullar
3. Rimpi Radios, Unit-3, Near Chunmun Mall, Model Town Road, Jalandhar through its Partner/Prop.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Manit Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs exparte.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased two 40” Sansui L.E.D. TV, vide bill No.2680 dated 30.06.2017 by paying amount of RS.47,000/-, copy of the Invoice is Ex.C-1. That the complainant got both the LED TVs installed at his residential place in different rooms. After three months a spot developed in the panel of the one LED TV. The complainant informed the dealer/company OP No.1 and 3 about the said defect. The OP No.3 sent a mechanic at the residence of the complainant for the rectification of the above stated defect in the LED. It was informed by the mechanic that there is a defect in the LED TV and it will be changed in due course. Thereafter, after one month, the spot was converted into line developed in the centre of LED TV. Many times the complainant informed the dealer to provide the service which he acknowledged to give at the time of selling the LED TV. That the agony of the complainant further increased to the highest level when all of sudden the LED TV screen got blacked out. The matter was immediately reported to the dealer again as the LED TV was still under warranty. It was informed by the dealer/mechanic who visited the residence of the complainant that the panel of the LED TV is to be replaced, but at present they are not having any possession or new panel. That the matter kept on lingering even after repeated request of the complainant and his family members, but there was no head given by the OP No.3 except assuring the complainant that the panel will be replaced as soon as it will be received by the OP No.1. That further complainant strongly complained the OP No.3 to get the defect of LED TV repaired instead of giving services to the complainant, OP No.3 stated that now LED TV has got out of warranty and the complainant have to pay for the services. The complainant through of getting the matter sorted out and to avoid any litigation agreed to pay the service charges to get the panel of the LED TV replaced, though it was to be replaced free of cost as the defect erupted and reported during warranty period.
2. That on 19.09.2018, an executive visited the residence of the complainant claiming to be representative of the OP No.2 and further claimed that the OP No.2 is authorized service centre of the OP No.1. The executive gave a receipt of Rs.1000/- as service charge claimed for visiting the residence of the complainant. In the receipt the executive further mentioned panel pending. It is pertinent to mention here that the panel which got defected during the warranty of the instrument is still pending even after paying service charges of Rs.1000/- which is giving an impression that the respondents are extorting money from the complainant. That the complainant through its counsel served a legal notice dated 29.12.2018 to the OPs, copy of the same is Ex.C-3, but the OPs failed to give any reply to the above said notice, hence this complaint. By selling the defective 40” LED TV and also not providing proper services and follow up of the same, amounts to deficiency of services on the part of the OPs and the OPs have also committed unfair trade practices towards the complainant for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. That the cause of action accrued to the complainant firstly on after three months of the purchase date when the defect was occurred in the 40” LED TV, and further on the occasion when the complainant asked to render services by replacing the defective panel under warranty and further when the OPs failed to give any reply to the legal notice and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that replace the defecting 40” LED TV with new one and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental tension, harassment suffered by the complainant and to pay the complainant Rs.22,000/- on account of legal expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs miserably failed to appear and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his respective version, counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective documents.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant, very minutely.
6. Precisely, the case set up by the complainant is only that he purchased two 40” Sansui LED TV for a sum of Rs.47,000/-, vide Invoice Ex.C-1 dated 30.06.2017 and the warranty of the LED TV has been given and during the warranty period, one of the LED TV was having some major defect i.e. spot developed in the panel of the one LED TV and accordingly, the same was informed to the company i.e. OPs No.1 & 3 and then a mechanic sent by OP No.3, who informed that there is a defect in the LED TV and it will be changed in due course, but after one month, the spot was converted into line developed in the centre of the LED TV and after some time the screen of the LED got blacked out and again the matter was reported to the dealer, who visited the residence of the complainant and checked the LED and told that the panel of the LED TV is to be replaced, but at present he has no new panel. Despite numerous request on the part of the complainant, the OP did not bother to change the panel of the LED TV and after some time asked the LED TV has got out of warranty. On 19.09.2018, an executive visited the residence of the complainant and claimed that OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of the OP No.1 and he gave a receipt of Rs.1000/- as service charge claimed for visiting the residence of the complainant, copy of the receipt is Ex.C-2 and in this receipt “panel pending” mentioned by executive. The executive charged Rs.1000/- despite under warranty. Thereafter, the complainant through his counsel served a legal notice dated 29.12.2018 to the OPs, but the OPs failed to file any reply and all in vain and accordingly, the complainant alleged that there is ac deficiency in service on the part of the OP and filed the instant complaint.
7. We have sympathetically considered the submission of the complainant and find that the complainant has established on the file that he purchased LED TV, vide bill Ex.C-1 dated 30.06.2017 and the same was deposited with the service centre i.e OP No.3, but the defect in the LED TV has yet not been rectified. The factum above noted are required to be falsified by the OPs by appearing in the Forum, but for the best known reason, the OPs did not come present to meet the grievances of the complainant and accordingly, we find that the version of the complainant, which is un-rebutted and un-challenged is required to be accepted and accordingly, hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and all the OPs are directed to replace the defecting 40” LED TV with new one and further OPs are directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Kuljit Singh
22.12.2020 Member President
