Delhi

North East

CC/64/2015

Shri Mohd. Yunush Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Sharp Business Systems India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 64/15

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Mohd. Yunus Khan A-5, A-Block, Village Gokalpur, Main Road, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Sharp Business Systems India Pvt. Ltd Through its Director/ MD/ Authorized Signatory, at 214-221, Ansal Tower, 38 Nehru Place, New Delhi.   Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-1 Kanti Nagar Extn., Main Road, Delhi-32		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		17.02.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		06.10.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		09.10.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Mohd. Yunus Khan against M/s. M/s. Sharp Business Systems India Pvt. Ltd.- OP1 & Sargam Electroncis Pvt Ltd. – OP2 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act with the prayer to direct OPs to pay Rs. 24,500/-, the cost of LED TV and                      Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

The facts of the present complaint are that, on 19.05.2013 the complainant had purchased a SHARP LED TV Model NO. LC-32LE3451M from OP2 vide invoice No. D/KN 609 for Rs. 24,500/-. It is stated that the said TV was not working properly soon after purchase for which the complainant requested the OP to either repair or replace the same. The said LED TV was given for repairing to authorized service partner of OP1. The complainant has stated that legal notice dated 08.12.2014 seeking refund of the cost of the TV was served upon OPs. In reply dated 20.12.14 to the legal notice issued by complainant, OP had stated that the LED TV had already been repaired and complainant was not interested in taking the repaired LED TV. It was also stated in reply that OP1 was ready to return the purchase amount of LED TV, in case complainant was not willing to take the repaired LED TV back. It has been further stated that upon receipt of reply of legal notice the complainant visited the office of OP to collect the refund, which was not paid to him despite several visits.

The complainant has annexed legal notice dated 8.12.14 alongwith postal receipt, reply dated 20.12.14 to legal notice, invoice issued by OP2 dated 19.05.13 and job sheet alongwith complaint.

2. OP1 filed reply upon service of the notice of the present complaint, where they took the defence that it was the complainant who was not collecting the repaired LED TV, which was duly conveyed to the complainant vide reply to the legal notice. It was submitted that OP1 was still ready to return the purchase amount to complainant in case the complainant was not willing to collect the repaired LED TV. Rest of the contents of complaint denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
3. OP2 in reply stated that a brand new and sealed LED was handed over to the complainant and it was OP1 the manufacturer, who was responsible for providing after sale services. Thus, no deficiency in service could be attributed on their part.
4.  In rejoinder to written statement filed on behalf of OP1 the complainant has denied the contents of the written statement and reaffirmed those of the complaint. It was denied that the complainant has failed to collect the repaired LEV TV.
5. Rejoinder to written statement of OP2 was filed wherein also the contents of complaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, wherein he got exhibited invoice No. D/KN-609 dated 19.05.2013 as Ex. CW1/1, Job sheet issued by Service Centre Ex. CW1/2, Legal Notice dated 08.12.2014 is Ex. CW1/3 alongwith postal receipt is Ex. CW1/4 and reply dated 20.12.14 to the notice Ex. CW1/5.

No evidence was filed by OP1.

OP2 examined, Shri Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative, who reaffirmed the contents of their reply. It was also stated that the said LED TV had worked satisfactorily for 18 months and the complainant had directly approached OP1. No evidence filed by OP1.

7. We have heard Ld. Counsels for complainant and OP1 and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has placed on record undated job sheet which does not disclosed as to when the said LED TV was given for repair. So, relying on the date when the legal notice was issued by the complainant, which is 8.12.14, we can consider that there was no problem with the said LED TV for almost 15 months. Exhibit CW1/5 which is the reply to the legal notice issued by OP1 wherein OP1 has showed their willingness to refund the cost of LED TV, in case the complainant was not interested in taking the repaired set back, which has been reiterated in the reply filed by OP1. When OP1 is willing to refund the invoice amount despite the fact that complainant has used the same for more than 15 months before serving a legal notice no deficiency in service can be attributed  on the part of OPs. Hence, we direct OP1 to refund Rs. 20,875/- being the depreciated cost of LED (Rs.24,500-15% depreciation) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum  is awarded on Rs. 20,875/- from the date of order till realization. No compensation is being awarded as the OP1 was and is willing to return the invoice amount even prior to filing of the present complaint as is obvious from Ex- CW1/5, further the complainant has made vague assertions regarding his visits to OP’s office for refund, no date has been mentioned as to when he visited OP1.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  09.10.2017)         

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member