Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/195/2019

Kishore Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Hans Raj

12 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/195/2019
Date of Institution	:	26/03/2019
Date of Decision	:	12/02/2021

 

Kishore Chand son of Shri Inder Mal, resident of House No.HE-143, Phase IX, Mohali through his special attorney Shri Amit Kumar son of Inder Mal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Videocon Industries Limited, through its Managing Director/Partner/Authorised Representative, 14KM Stone, Paithan Rad, Chitegaon, Distt. Aurangabad-431106, Maharashtra.
2. Techno Kart India Limited, Auto Care, Compound Adalat Road, through its MD Aurangabad-431005, Branch Office : SCO No.317-18, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
3. Kings Electronic through its Manager Authorised Service Centre, Shop No.402, Kharar Batala Road, Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar 140301.
4. F1 Solutions through its Manager, Authorised Service Center, SCO No.274, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh 160047.
5. M/s Tekcare India Private Limited through its Managing Director 14KM Stone, Paithan Rad, Chitegaon, Distt. Aurangabad-431106, Maharashtra.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Allegations are, on 11.11.2015 complainant had purchased an LED, as fully described under paragraph No.2 of consumer complaint, from OP-2.  It was manufactured by OP-1, OPs 3 & 4 are the service centre and OP-5 is the authorized customer care. The case is, in July 2017, the said LED stopped functioning properly and the matter was brought to the notice of OP-5 who asked to contact OPs 3 & 4 for redressal of his grievance.  The complainant contacted OPs 3 & 4, but, they lingered the matter. Alleged, the LED is still under warranty period of five years and OPs indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not repairing the same. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to refund the cost of the LED i.e. ₹37,000/-; pay compensation of ₹50,000/- and ₹25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     Registered notices were sent to OPs 1 to 5.  Notices issued to OPs 1, 4 & 5 and OP-3 were presumed to have been served and since none appeared on their behalf, therefore, vide orders dated 27.5.2019 and 8.8.2019 respectively they were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. 
3.     Registered notice issued to OP-2 was received back with the report unclaimed which was termed as refusal and since none appeared on its behalf, therefore, vide order dated 3.1.2020 it was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. 
4.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
5.     We have gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     We have perused the allegations made in the consumer complaint supported by way of affidavit of the attorney of complainant alongwith Special Power of Attorney (Annexure C-2), purchase bill (Annexure C-3), service contract benefits and it is the case the LED is still under warranty period, but, the same is not corrected or repaired by OPs 3 & 4. 
7.     As referred above, OPs chose not to contest the consumer complaint to rebut the allegations of the complainant. We are, therefore, of the view they have nothing to say qua the allegations leveled in the consumer complaint.  However, it is a fact, even according to the complainant, the product has performed well till July 2017. The complainant has not placed on record any document/job sheet to show that the LED became defective in the year 2017. The only document which proves the LED became defective is the service call report (Walk-in) which is dated 17.11.2018 (Annexure C-5) after which the complainant issued the legal notice dated 7.12.2018 (Annexure C-6) and when the needful was not done, he filed the instant consumer complaint on 26.3.2019. This shows for around 2-3 years, the LED in question functioned well.  As such, no case for refund of the amount of the LED, as prayed for by the complainant, is made out as the same was used for around 2-3 years.  However, the act of OPs in refusing to do service/replace the defective part tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to repair the LED in question and replace the part(s), if need be, in terms of the warranty
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/02/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President