Haryana

Ambala

CC/206/2013

Ashok Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Subhash Chand, - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                      Complaint Case No.:   206 of 2013

          Date of Institution    :    23.08.2013

          Date of Decision  :      11.08.2015

 

Ashok Bhatia, H.No. 49/786, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                                                                                        ……….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Subhash Chand Ashok Kumar, 21-22, Rai Market, Near Minerva Complex, Ambala Cantt.

2.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OP No.1 exparte.

                   Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv.counsel for OP No.2.

ORDER

                   Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that he purchased a Samsung 3D LED from  OP No.1 M/s Subhash Chand Ashok Kumar vide bill no.30361 dated 13.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.52,200/-.  Aforesaid LED was to be installed by the authorized agents of the OP company and for installing the LED, Installing Agent of the Ops opened the box and found only one goggle whereas set of two goggles was required to be provided by the Ops alongwith  the LED and the Installing Agent told the complainant that one goggles is short in supply from the OP  company. As such, the matter was brought to the notice of retailer/seller i.e. OP No.1 who in turn brought into notice of the company i.e. Op No.2 but Ops failed to provide the second goggles inspite of visiting of the complainant regularly to the shop of OP No.1 and at last OP No.1 refused  the same on the premise that Op No.2 company has refused to do anything in this matter. The complainant has thus alleged that it is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice committed by Ops with him.  In the end, he has prayed that action be taken against the Ops and direction be issued to Ops to supply to the complainant second set of goggle alongwith appropriate compensation & damages etc.

2.                Upon notice, Op No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement urging therein that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP since the complainant has purchased the unit from OP No.1 who is not their authorized dealer and thus OP No.2 is not liable for any act of the Op No.1. Besides it, Op No.2 also urged that the OP company has never provided any services to the complainant so there is no deficiency on their part and thus present complaint may kindly be dismissed qua answering OP whereas Op No.1 did not appear inspite of the service of notice upon him and hence, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.10.2013.

3.                During the course of proceedings before the Forum, on 28.11.2013 complainant appeared before the Forum and stated on oath that Ops have provided 2^nd set  of goggles after issuance of notice by the Forum and thus nothing is due of the complainant against Ops but for harassment, he may be  provided suitable compensation.

4.                 To prove his allegations, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents i.e. bill qua purchase of LED from OP No.1 as Annexure C-1 whereas Op No.2 tendered  affidavit of one Somya Sawroop representative of  Samsung India Pvt. Ltd as Annexure RX and closed evidence on behalf of Op.

5.                Complainant as well as Ops’s counsel were duly heard on 11.08.2015 and they reiterated their stand as taken in the complaint as well as  in reply filed by OP No.2.  After perusing the documents placed on record by both  the parties, it is not in dispute  that complainant purchased LED from the OP Company wherein alongwith the LED, two goggles were to be provided to the complainant by the seller/retailer of the OP company but he provided only one goggles  and later  on during proceedings of the case, second goggle was  also provided to him wherefrom  it is proved that Ops have committed unfair trade practice with the complainant and thus both  the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as liable  for penalty for causing harassment to the complainant as they provided second goggles only after filing of the present complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and Ops No.1 & 2  are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- jointly & severally to the complainant on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation etc. Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs  jointly & severally within thirty days from communication of the order failing which the awarded amount shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default and complainant shall have right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum under Section 27 of C.P. Act for enforcement of the award. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:11.08.2015                                              Sd/-

                                                                               (A.K. SARDANA)

           PRESIDENT       

                     Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                         MEMBER