Haryana

Ambala

CC/250/2015

Rajender Parshad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Zee Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

            Complaint Case No.:   250 of 2015

Date of Institution   :    07.09.2015

 Date of Decision     :    28.04.2016

Rajinder Prasad S/o late Shree Ram R/o H.No.1636, Sector 13-Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                                                                               ……Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Zee Electronics, Shop No.200 Railway Road, near Football Chowk, Ambala Cantt through its Owner/partner Ajay Kumar.

2.       Jain Shree Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.243, Old Lajpat Rai Market, old Delhi-110006

                                                                                                                                                                  ……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.

                   Ops exparte.

ORDER.

1.                Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’)  has been filed by the complainant contending therein that  he purchased one DVR which is fitted in CCTV Camera-make HAWK, Model No.HV8608D from OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.5700/- but OP did not issued cash memo for the same rather provided warranty of one year.  After 20-25 days of its purchase, the product did not work properly. So, complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 who after rectifying its defect returned the same to complainant after retaining one month at his shop. It has been further contended by complainant that after 15-20 days, said DVR again became out of order and the product was sent to OP No.1 through one  Rajinder Singh @ Bobby S/o Mohender Singh R/o village Kanipla, District Kurukshetra and after its rectification it was brought back by  Ishwar S/o Kesar Dass R/o village Fatehpur, District Kurukshetra. But the DVR did not work properly and despite making complaint to OP no.2-manufacturer of the product, they did not rectify  the same rather misbehaved with the complainant. Hence, the complainant has submitted that Ops are deficient & negligent in providing proper services to the complainant and prayed for granting  relief as mentioned in prayer para of the complaint.

2.                Despite registered notices, Ops did not bothered to appear and as such, they were proceeded  against exparte  vide order dated 19.10.2015.

 3.               To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure  CX alongwith affidavits of Rajinder Singh @ Bobby and Ishwar Dass as Annexures CY & CZ respectively.

4.                We have heard the complainant and perused the record very carefully. The main grouse of the complainant is that the DVR so purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 remained defective time and again inspite of rectifying its defect by OP but the Ops refused to replace the same though the product was having some inherent manufacturing defect  and was within  the warranty.  In this way, Ops are not only deficient & negligent in providing proper services rather has played unfair trade practice with him by not issuing a bill for the said product.     

                    To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavits Annexures CX,CY & CZ respectively of complainant, Rajinder Singh @ Bobby and Ishwar Dass. Contents of the affidavits have been corroborated with the allegations leveled in the complaint. Since, the OPs remained exparte and not contested their case, as such, we have no other option except to believe the version of the complainant and thus we hold that the Ops are not only deficient & negligent in providing proper services to the complainant rather have committed unfair trade practice with complainant by not issuing bill for the product. Had the Ops have issued the bill, complainant must have produced it before the Forum to prove his contention. In view of the above discussion, we accept the present complaint  and  direct the OPs to comply with the following directions jointly and severally within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To replace the DVR in question and if the same is not available, then to pay a sum of Rs.5700/- to the complainant with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization etc.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost of litigation etc.

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced:28.04.2016                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                              (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                           (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                                                                                                                                                                                        MEMBER