Vipan Kumar son of Sh. Lakhpat Rai resident of House No. 1403/10, Khu Bombay Wala, Amritsar Mobile No. 9815384080
Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Sharp Radio Corporation Chowk Farid, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner Mobile No. 98727 38640
- M/s. Real Impex 21, National Shopping Complex, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner Mobile No. 98722 19544
- M/s. Jeeves Consumer Sergvice Pvt.Limited, Superfine Electonics, Opposite Civil Hospital side adjoining City Medicos Lane Amritsar through its Prop. Mr.Shelender Singh/Partner/Person to receive the summons Mobile No. 9876681376
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :Complainant in person
For the Opposite Parties : Ex-parte
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Sh.Vipan Kumar, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased one Toshiba 40” LED Model No. 40 P.S. 200 ZE vide bill No. 5265 dated 23.10.2013 for Rs. 37800/- from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is distributor and opposite party No.3 is service centre , therefore, they are impleaded as parties to the present complaint. The LED was got financed from Bajaj Finance Ltd. vide Agreement No. 4910CD00787479 dated 31.10.2013 and payment was cleared and the finance company gave clearance certificate dated 13.7.2016. There is defect in the LED Penal and during the warranty period the complaint was lodged on 23.10.2013 with opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 confirmed that request of the complainant but did not set right the LED. Thereafter complainant made so many requests to repair the LED , but to no avail. The opposite party No.3 has failed to hand over the LED after repair which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which complainant is entitled to compensation. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite parties be directed to replace the LED with new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the LED amounting to Rs. 37800/- alongwith 24% p.a. interest ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses were also demanded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 did not opt to put appearance, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. Initially opposite party No.2 put appearance through Adv.Rajan Bajaj and the case was adjourned for filing written version. But when none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to file written version, as such opposite party No.2 was also ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. In the meantime complainant has moved an application for impleading DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon as party to the present complaint and copy of the same was delivered to counsel for opposite party No.2. The application was allowed and the notice to opposite party No.4 was issued. But when none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 4 , it was also ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 23.10.2013 Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3, copy of no objection certificate Ex.C-4, copies of the print out of SMS Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
5. From the appraisal of the evidence produced on record by the complainant i.e. copy of job sheet Ex.C-3, it fully proves on record that the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 for removing the defects occurred in the LED of the complainant for which opposite party No.3 issued job sheet in which it was duly mentioned that the warranty of the said product was expired . However, the opposite party No.3 gave the estimate of repair of the product i.e. parts/labour i.e. LED Panel for service to the tune of Rs. 4162/- on 22.10.2016. It was the case of the complainant that till date the opposite party No.3 has not returned the LED after repair to the complainant. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite parties No.1 & 3 despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint , whereas opposite party No.2 after making appearance did not dare to file written version and thereafter was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte and thereby the opposite parties impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite parties had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. The very fact that opposite party No.3 has been retaining the LED in dispute since 22.7.2016 and has failed to repair the same. The act and conduct of the opposite party No.3 amounts to deficiency in service.
6. Consequently we allow the instant complaint ex-parte with directions to opposite party No.3 to repair the LED to the satisfaction of the complainant as per job sheet Ex.C-3 . The complainant is also awarded Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc. while an amount of Rs. 1000/- is awarded as litigation expenses. However, complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 14.11.2017