Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/73

Ved Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Sales Cooperation - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       73 of 2021

Date of Institution :  19.04.2021

Date of Decision :    18.07.2022

Ved Parkash aged about 50 years, son of Om Parkash r/o Street No. 1, Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Gandhi Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                               

.....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s National Sales Corporation, Railway Road, Karnail Poorian Wali Gali, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through Proprietor/owner.                                              
2. Onida Customer Care Centre, Gali No. O/B, Bibi Wala Road, Lord Rama School, Near Krishna Central, Bathinda through Authorized Person.
3. MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1, M I D C, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 through its Managing Director.

                                              ..............OPs

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

cc no.73 of 2021

 

Quorum: Sh Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ved Parkash/ Complainant in Person,

              OPs-Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President)

                                                    Complainant Ved Parkash (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ before this Commission against National Sales Corporation and others (hereinafter referred as Opposite parties).

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one 32 inch LED make Onida worth Rs.16,000/-alongwith washing machine, refrigerator and one cooler from OP-1 and paid him total amount of Rs.62,500/-in cash vide bill dated 19.10.2020. At the time of purchase, OP-1 assured that LED of Onida Company is of very good quality. He gave guarantee of two years and also assured to provide services and for

cc no.73 of 2021

replacement in case of any fault. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant purchased all these articles to give as a wedding gift to his daughter on her marriage.

3                                It is alleged that remote of LED sold by OP-1 that complainant gifted to his daughter on her marriage, was not working and LED did not get started. On complaint made by complainant to OP-1, he sent his mechanic at the house of his daughter, who found the remote of LED in question, defective. OPs provided new remote, but that also did not work. OPs again changed remote, but problem persisted again and LED did not start. Thereafter, employees of OP-2 visited the house of his daughter, who after thorough checking of said LED said that there was no chip for remote and also told that LED in question was of old 2017 model and its spare parts, remote and chip were required to be brought from the Company i.e OP-3. Said LED did not work and therefore, complainant brought the same from the house of his daughter to his own house and made several requests to OP-1 to make replacement of same with new one, but he kept putting off the complainant on the ground that as and when he received material from Company, he would get rectified the said article.

cc no.73 of 2021

4                                    It is also alleged by complainant that OP-1 shopkeeper intentionally sold three year old model of TV to him instead of new model of 2020. Complainant was totally unaware that model of said LED was 2017.

5                                   It is further alleged that complainant made several requests to OPs, but they did not do anything needful. Complainant also sent e-mail to OP-3 requesting the company to repair or replace the said LED, but all in vain.

6                                        Complainant has alleged that daughter of complainant had to suffer humiliation due to this act of OPs and he has also suffered huge financial loss as well as harassment and mental agony due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.

7                                                    On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions OPs to replace the said LED with new one or to refund the cost price of same and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

 

cc no.73 of 2021

8                                     Complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.04.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

9                                       Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-1 through registered, but OP-1 refused to accept the same and did not come present in Commission on date fixed and therefore, vide order dated 19.05.2022, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte. Notice was issued to OP-2 through publication and notice issued to OP-3 through registered post was duly served, but no body appeared in this Commission on behalf of OP-2 and 3 either in person or through counsel and thereafter, after long waiting till 4.00 O’clock, when no one appeared on their behalf, then, both OP-2 and 3 were also proceeded against exparte on 19.05.2022.

10                                     As all Opposite Parties, are exparte in present complaint, therefore, to prove his pleadings, complainant himself tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit  as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed the same.

 

cc no.73 of 2021

11                                              We have heard the exparte arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have very carefully gone through and perused the affidavits & documents placed on the record file.

12                                                  From the careful perusal of record placed on file and submissions made by complainant, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased some electronic appliances from the shop of OP-1 as dowry articles for giving gift to his daughter on her marriage. Out of these articles, one 32 inch LED make Onida worth Rs.16,000/-did not work well. Its remote did not work and it could not start. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have neither replaced the said LED nor put the same in running condition. Due to non working of new LED, daughter of complainant had to suffer huge humiliation before her in-laws. Complainant has made repeated requests and sent e-mail to OPs, but all in vain. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal from OPs side as all the opposite parties are exparte.

13                                  To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record Ex C-2 copy of bill dated 19.10.2020 that proves the fact that complainant purchased the LED in question from OP-1. Copy of e-mails dated

cc no.73 of 2021

15.02.2021, 19.02.2021 and 20.02.2021 prove the contentions of complainant that remote of new LED purchased by him from OPs was defective and due to fault,  said LED did not start. Through e-mils sent by complainant to OPs, it is also transpired that OP-1 intentionally sold 2017 model LED to complainant in 2020. These mails also reveal the harassment that complainant had to go through the hands of OP-1 shopkeeper. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has tried to reiterate his grievance and has made request for replacement of LED. Though OPs assured to rectify the defect and also assured to replace the LED in question in case of any fault, but thereafter, they did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

15                                  In the light of above discussion, this Commission is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not replacing the remote of LED. Had OPs paid sufficient attention to the problem of complainant and had they initiated appropriate steps to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant by replacing the remote of said LED on request of complainant, case of complainant would have been different. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand

cc no.73 of 2021

is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to rectify/repair the defective LED and if LED cannot be repaired/rectified, then to refund the price of LED to complainant within 45 days of receipt of the copy of the order. Complainant is directed to return the defective LED to OPs on receipt of refund of price of LED by the OPs to complainant. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by OPs within prescribed period, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission on :

18.07.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)  (Param Pal Kaur)   (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

 Member                    Member                    President