Haryana

Ambala

CC/318/2020

Akshit Batra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Intex Technologies Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar Goel

11 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  318 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :  10.12.2020.

                                                          Date of decision    :  11.05.2022.

 

Akshit Batra s/o Mangal Sain Batra, aged about 25 years, r/o 5-A, Preet Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.

 

1. M/s Intex Technologies (I) Ltd., through its M.D., A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020
2. M/s Gulati Electronics through its Authorized Official/Prop. SCO-61, Prem Nagar, Ambala City being Authorized Service Centre of M/s Intex Technologies.
3. M/s Ikon Electronics through its Proprietor, SCO-19-20, Gulati Market, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri P.K. Goel, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OPs already exparte.

 

Order:        Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the said LED/TV with the new one or to refund Rs.40,000/- i.e. cost of LED/TV alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum.
2. To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and financial loss and to pay Rs. 30,000/- for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant  had purchased a LED/TV bearing model No. LED B4301 UHD SMT vide invoice No. 501 dated 23.05.2018 amounting to Rs.40,000/-, having three years warranty against any manufacturing defects w.e.f. 23.05.2018, from OP No.3. OP No. 1 is the manufacturer of Intex Products and OP NO. 2 is authorized Service Centre of OP No.1 and OP No. 3 is authorized dealer of OP No.1 and thus, they are liable for removal of defects in the product of Intex Company. In the month of March, 2019, the said LED/TV started giving problems and it suffered from some manufacturing defects in its Audio/Video system and due to which, it hanged many times with picture remained as still on screen and then, complainant gave complaint to the service centre. The officials visited and repaired it and assured that it will run smoothly now but in the month of August, September, 2019, again, it started giving same problems. Then, official from Service Centre came to his house and checked the LED/TV and he said that there are some technical problems in this LED/TV and advised the complainant to get exchanged the LED/TV from the company as it is in warranty period as mentioned in the warranty card. Complainant went to OP No.2 and requested to exchange the said LED/TV under warranty and OP No.2 on behalf of OP No.1 agreed to exchange the said LED/TV. On 09.10.2019, the said LED/TV was replaced by OPs No.1 &2 and new Model LED-SU4303 was given to complainant and picture of user manual of same is filed. The warranty was continued on his LED and assurance was given that this Model will work and run smoothly. In the month of March, 2020 it started giving some problems and did not function properly. The said LED/TV did not give proper Audio/Video and picture. Complainants made several complaints to OPs but of no avail. Complainant further made complaint to service centre of OP No.2 through email vide complaint No. A040690000008 dated 06.04.2020 on 03.05.2020. Then, after so many requests, service centre employee visited the house of the complainant on 16.05.2020 and checked the LED/TV, complainant also paid service charges of Rs. 590/- vide invoice No. 689 dated 16.05.2020 and software was updated. But even after, LED/TV was not functioning properly and the problem of hanging continued to persist. Complainants made several complaints to company through email as well as through whatsapp on 06.04.2020,12.04.2020,13.04.2020.03.05.2020,20.05.2020,01.06.2020,06.06.2020,07.06.2020,13.06.2020.15.06.2020,26.06.2020 respectively, but to no avail. Upon checking in May, 2020, it was found that there was a problem in Audio/video  and even in August, 2020 it was functioning to which the screen hangs still with remote also not able to communicate with LED and same is a manufacturing defect due to which defect could not be rectified. Complainant asked OPs to replace the said LED/TV being in its warranty period as the same was inspected and repaired many times and on 23.07.2020, the Ops closed the case of complainant, showing being repaired but still the problem remained the same and still three years are not completed from the day of its purchase and complainant also requested the OPs to return the whole amount of LED/TV alongwith compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by complainant.   This is a clear case of deficiency in service of the OPs on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 before this Commission, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.02.2021 and upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No. 1&3 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2021.

4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-16 and close the evidence of the complainant.

5.           We have heard for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully.

6.           The averments made in complaint regarding defective LED/TV have been corroborated with the evidence. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of invoice No.501 dated 23.05.2018 total amounting to Rs.40,000/- (Annexure C-1). Complainant has argued that after few days of purchase, the LED/TV in question was not working properly. The complainant has further argued that he requested to OPs to resolve his problem but despite several emails before OPs, again the problem with the LED/TV in question was not resolved. However, the OPs have failed to remove the defects in the LED/TV of the complainant. From the perusal of  Annexure C-2, it is evident that the LED/TV purchased by the complainant was in warranty period, therefore he is entitled to get the LED/TV replaced from the OPs. The OPs have not contested the complaint. In this case, the OPs have proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus, we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by an affidavit and other supporting documents. Thus we are of the view that OPs are found deficient in providing service to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

7.           In view of above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be accepted and same is hereby allowed against the OPs and they are directed to comply with the following directions, jointly and severally, within 45 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the LED/TV in question with new one of the same model. If they are not in position to replace the LED/TV or of the same model, then to refund the cost of LED/TV or amounting Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @5% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 10.12.2020, till its realization.

(ii)     To pay Rs.2,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii)    To pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

                   Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room

Announced on :11.05.2022.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President

 

Present:       Shri P.K. Goel, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Ops already exparte.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on: 11.05.2022

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President