Delhi

New Delhi

CC/143/2011

Tuncay Alankus - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Jaypee Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/143/11                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Tuncay Alankus,

R/o D-205, Defence Colony,

New Delhi

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. JAY PEE Electronics

Through its Proprietor/Concerned Person,

B-29/7-B, Double Storey,

Ramesh Nagar, Opp. Metro Pillar no.378,

New Delhi-110015

 

2. Chief Executive,

Hitachi India Pvt. Ltd.,

Hitachi Complex, Karan Nagar Kadi,

Distt. Mehsana-382727, Gujarat   

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

Member: S.R Chaudhary

 

The Complainant had purchased a Hitachi LCT TV from OP on 15.12.07 from Audio Voice (India) Pvt. Ltd., Lajpat Nagar. Suddenly TV in question was stopped functioning during July 2010 and complaint was lodged with OP1. Complaint was attended by OP1 immediately and took the defective set for repair in his service centre when complainant did not get any call from OP1 after lapse of one week, complainant made a call to OP1 regarding defective set. He was informed by OP1 that “Scalar Board” of TV was defective. OP1 got it rectified after 2 months and was delivered to the complainant on payment of Rs.11,596/- and executive of OP1 left the place without giving any demonstration to the complainant as alleged. Later on it was noticed that monitor of TV was broken. Complainant again approached OP1 and he was assured that needful would be done shortly but there was no response from OP1 since many months and thereafter complaint was filed but OP proceeded exparte on 30.10.12 after serving a legal notice dated 27.11.10..

While evaluating exparte evidence it is admitted that complainant had purchased TV from Lajpat Nagar as per CW1/1. Service done by OP1 as per Exh.CW1/2. A legal notice was served as per Exh.CW1/3 & reply received by complaint as per Exh.CW1/5. It clearly indicates that TV in question was broken while it was under service process at OP1 premises which was supplied to complainant in sealed and packed condition without demonstration i.e. OP1 did not appear in Forum to contest the case.

OP is directed to replaced the broken TV or refund Rs.7,900/- cost of TV along with 3% interest from the date of delivery till payments. We also award Rs.2,000/- as harassment and litigation. Complainant is also directed to return defective TV to OP when compliance is made.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 09.06.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER