DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 1542/2015
Date of Institution : 26.11.2015
Date of Decision : 11.05.2016
Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Hans Raj resident of Near Punjab National Bank, Dhanaula District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Shiva Electronics, Near Mittal Hospital, Dhanaula-148105, Punjab.
Intex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Tanda Road, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Deepak Raj Jindal counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Krishan Kumar has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against M/s Shiva Electronics and Intex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant was intended to purchase one LED and as such he visited the shop of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 allured the complainant to purchase the LED of INTEX Company by assuring of its good quality and service. Believing upon the assurance, the complainant purchased one LED of make INTEX 39” (VF) for a sum of Rs. 26,000/- vide invoice No. 13669 dated 18.7.2015 and the said LED was installed on the wall at his residence.
3. It is alleged that in the last week of September 2015, the complainant noticed the disturbing signals from the LED i.e. lines coming up and down and left & right. Picture quality was also not proper. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 regarding the said defect. However, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that their mechanic would visit at the house of the complainant and will remove the defect. On 29.9.2015, the mechanic of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant and inspected the said LED and he told that the LED will be repaired in the next visit. Thereafter, on 7.10.2015, the mechanic again visited the house of the complainant and after inspecting the said LED, the mechanic told that the screen of the LED has got imperfection i.e. it was due to the putting of pressure on the screen and the same is beyond repair. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No. 1 and requested them to repair/replacement of the said defective LED having inherit defect. But the opposite party did not take any action or replace the said LED. Then the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel, but in vain. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To replace the said LED with a new one.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- for causing physical pain and mental agony.
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. The opposite party No. 1 appeared in the initial stage, but he failed to turn up. On 11.4.2016 the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte. However, the opposite party No. 2 was duly served, but failed to appear and was also proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, bill No. 13669 dated 18.7.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-4, copy of acknowledgment Ex.C-5, affidavit of Pankaj Garg Ex.C-6, copy of certificate Ex.C-7, visiting card Ex.C-8, bill Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for complainant and have gone through the documents.
7. The first question arises for consideration is whether the LED in question suffered from manufacturing defect. To establish the said defect for claiming the replacement thereof, the complainant is required to prove through cogent, convincing evidence supported by the opinion of an expert to the effect that the LED was having the manufacturing defect. Perusal of the documents on record shows that the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1 reiterating his case. Apart from his affidavit, the complainant has placed on record the invoice showing the purchase of LED for Rs. 26,000/- from the opposite party No. 1. Ex.C-3 is the legal notice. However, the complainant has not placed on record any report of an expert to show that the LED is suffering from manufacturing defect.
8. In Jose Philip Mampilli Vs Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Another, I (2004) SLT 855 = I (2004) CPJ 9 (SC) = 2004 (1) CPC 438 (S.C) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) = JT 2006 (4) SC 113, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the manufacturer could not be ordered to replace the car or refund its price, merely because some defects appear, which could be rectified or defective parts could be replaced, under warranty.
9. The complainant alleged that the Mechanic inspected the said LED and stated that it was beyond repair, but no report of the said Mechanic was placed on record. The LED was purchased in the month of July 2015 and the complaint was made in September 2015 and therefore the said LED within the warranty period. We are of the opinion that the opposite parties are under obligation to repair the said LED after removing the defect as pointed out and to make it in fit condition.
10. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint is accepted to the extent that the complainant is directed to approach the opposite parties and the opposite parties are directed to repair the same and make it in a working condition. Since the complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment, therefore the opposite parties are burdened with costs of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,100/-. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th Day of May, 2016.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
