Haryana

Kurukshetra

213/2017

Jai Bhagwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neelkhant - Opp.Party(s)

Rekha Devi

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.213 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 04.10.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 24.09.2018.

Jai Bhagwan son of Shri Arjun Singh, resident of Village Kaserla Nr. Khanpur Kolian, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Neelkanth Enterprises, near Neelkant Petrol Pump, Karnal Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
2. L.G. Company, 3^rd Floor, Main Sohan Road, near Ninex City Mart, Sector-49, Gurugram, Haryana.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

Present:     Ms. Rekha Devi, Advocate, for the complainant. 

                Op No.1 exparte. 

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jai Bhagwan against Neelkanth Enterprises and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased an LED bearing Sr.No.55LH600T for a sum of Rs.85,000/- from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.NED/16-17/0789 dt. 10.10.2016 against the warranty of one year.  It is alleged that the said LED was having manufacturing defect from the very beginning and consequently after some time of its purchase, the said LED stopped working properly and there is blackness and lines in a side of the LED screen.  It is further alleged that the complainant made several requests to the Ops and also made telephonic calls to the Op No.2 on 11.09.2017 on their toll free number but the Ops did not repair the LED in question despite the fact that the said LED in question was within guarantee period.  The complainant made several requests to Ops to repair or replace the said LED in question but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the cost of LED alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase or in alternative to replace the defective LED with extended warranty and further to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 20.11.2017.  Op No.2 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint against the answering Op.  In fact the defect in the LED of the complainant has developed due to mishandling on the part of complainant as the service engineer who visited the premises of complainant found that the said LED has been damaged by mishandling on the part of complainant; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of her case, ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill as Ex.C1 and copy of aadhar card as Ex.C2 and photograph, Ex.C3 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavits,Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             From the cash memo, Ex.C1, it is clear that the LED in question was purchased by the complainant from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.85,000/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the said LED became defective with the problems of blackness and lines in a side of the LED screen within the guarantee/warrantee period and despite several visits and requests, the Ops did not repair or replace the said LED in question.  To prove his case, the complainant has testified all the facts in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the above-said affidavit, the complainant has also supported his versions by the document (photograph), Ex.C3.  We have seen the said photograph, Ex.C3 and from the said photograph, it is crystal clear that there is some blackness and lines in a side of the LED screen.  So, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the LED in question became defective within the warranty/guarantee period.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from the Ops.

8.            Thus, in view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OPs to replace the defective LED of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges.  However, it is made clear that if the same model of LED is not available with the OPs, then the Ops are directed to pay the purchased amount of LED to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old LED along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:24.09.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.