Delhi

East Delhi

CC/440/2015

SALMAN AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  440/15

 

Salman Ahmed

S/o Shri Imtiyaz Ahmed

R/o R-216/2, Ramesh Park

Gali No. 9, Laxmi Nagar East

Delhi – 110 092                                                                     ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd.

D-10, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Philips Electronics India Ltd.

C/o TDC Warehousing Corporation

HCMR Complex

Village Mandoli

Delhi – 110 093                                                                …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 16.07.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 31.08.2017

Judgment Passed on: 31.08.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Salman Ahmed against Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and Philips Electronics India Ltd. (OP-2), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased Philips LED (22PFL3958) from Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) for a sum of Rs. 11,000/- vide bill no. 677 dated 17.04.2015.  The complainant was assured at the time of purchase by respondent that the said LED will render flawless and fault free service for years to come.  However, the complainant was surprised when he started his LED and found that colour of the LED was not working properly and clarity of the video was upto 60%.  He immediately made a complaint on 18.04.2015 where respondent no. 2, who send his executive viz. Mo. Aman Ali, who checked the LED, but could not rectify the defect.  The complainant again made another complaint with respondent     no. 2, who again sent Mo. Aman Ali, who failed to rectify the defect.  The executive told that the company will send a senior executive to rectify the defect, but none of them came to remove the same.

          He has further stated that he sent so many emails to respondent as on 08.06.2015, 09.06.2015, 10.06.2015, 11.06.2015, 14.06.2015, 15.06.2015 and 16.06.2015, but the complainant did not get any response.  Even, when the complainant did not get any satisfactory reply, he made a final mail to respondent on 16.06.2015 and also made a call to Mr. Qamar Khan, who informed that he did not have the said area and have asked to contact some other person viz. Mr. Bhupender.  When he made a call to Mr. Bhupender, he did not receive his call.  Thus, the complainant has stated that the LED was lying defective with him and OP have failed to provide any service, which amounts to deficiency in service.  Thus, he has claimed the refund of cost of LED amounting to Rs. 11,000/-;          Rs. 40,000/- as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.       In the WS of Philips Electronics India Ltd. (OP-2), they have denied the allegations and have stated that the complainant was giving wrong information to the Forum.  The complainant lodged the first complaint on 08.06.2015.  The complaint of dated 18.04.2015 was not on record.  The complainant reported about the picture quality of LED dated 08.06.2015, which was attended and the set was found perfectly fine.  The complainant wanted to see the HD picture quality with normal set up box, which was not possible in technical terms. 

          Since, the complainant wanted to have HD picture quality with normal set up box and could not get the same as the complainant did not change HD set up box, he made complaint for demanding the money back.  Thus, it has been stated that there was no deficiency on the part of OP.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the contents of the complaint.

          No evidence has been filed by OPs.

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  From the contents of the complaint, it is noticed that the complainant have made the complaint in respect of poor quality of colour and clarity of video.  Though, the record shows that the complainant have sent mails to OP from time to time, however, there is no document on record such as service report showing that there was poor quality of colour as well as video.  In the absence of any documentary proof, there cannot be said that the colour quality or video quality was poor. 

          On the contrary, OP have taken the stand in their WS that the complainant wanted to have HD picture quality with normal set up box.  It seems that instead of having HD set up box, the complainant wanted to have HD picture quality with normal set up box, therefore, the stand taken by OP in their WS have to be accepted.  Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of OP.  As there is no deficiency on the part of OP, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.             

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President