DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH ======= Complaint Case No.399 of 2010 Date of Inst:30.06.2010 Date of Decision:08.08.2011 Sh. Mohinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Rai Singh Resident of House No.26, Block No.129, Sector -32-A, Chandigarh through his Attorney Sh. Rakesh Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh. ..…Complainant V e r s u s 1. Next Retail Shop, Sector -35-B, Chandigarh. 2. Ace Engineers, Authorized Service Centre, Plot No.303, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER PRESENT: Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for the OP-1. OP-2 already exparte. --- PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER Sh.Mohinder Singh, complainant (referred as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (referred as OPs for short), on the ground that CC has purchased a Videocon LCD television Model No.VBL22SBH vide bill No.80730 dated 16.10.2009 from the OP-1 for Rs.13500/- in cash. It is averred in the complaint that LCD was not working properly from the very beginning and used to automatically switch off after every 30 minutes. The CC lodged complaint on customer care of OP-2, who sent a Service Engineer to look into and rectify the default. The said service engineer changed the power supply unit of the LCD in question and assured that the problem has been fully dealt with. But to the utter surprise of the CC the problem still existed. The CC again visited the customer care of OP-2 repeatedly. However ultimately, the customer care centre told the CC that as they are not selling the said model and type of the LCD any more, they are unable to change the same with a new one. CC has mentioned the customer care service agent No. CHA2911090016, CHA0412090074, CHA2677090061 and CHA271209001 respectively. CC has averred in para 10 of his complaint that OP-2 finally made an offer to replace the LCD television of the CC with a new one, provided the CC pays the difference in price of another LCD model that he may choose from the available ones. To which the CC agreed. However CC claims that the Ops asked him to pay Rs.3490/- for the model, he selected, which was priced at Rs.16990/-, but CC was surprised to know that the price of old LCD printed on the cartoon box was amounting to Rs.16990/-. Thus alleging the OP-2 was wrong in demanding Rs.3490/- as the model selected by him was of same value. Thereafter the CC issued legal notice to both the Ops through registered post as well as UPC on 01.04.2010 demanding replacement of the LCD in question or return of the money paid i.e.Rs.13500/-. Not receiving any reply from the Ops and filed the present complaint seeking relief of directing the Ops to replace the defective LCD with a new one and a compensation of Rs.30000/- on account of suffering physical, mentally and monetary loss and litigation expenses. Ops were served, but OP-2 though properly served failed to appear and was proceeded as exparte vide order dated 16.09.201. However OP-1 contested the claim of the CC and filed a short reply raising objections on the ground that the CC at no point of time made any representation to OP-1 and had been directly in touch with OP-2. OP-1 has also strongly objected to the fact that CC did not produce any expert report with regard to the alleged defect of the LCD apart from this the CC had been directly negotiating the exchange of his LCD in question with a new model with OP-2 only. The short reply filed by OP-1 is supported by an affidavit which is duly verified. The contents of the affidavit are nothing, but the repetition of the short reply. Having gone through the entire complaint and short version filed by OP-1 and the evidence of the CC, we are of this considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on part of OP-1 on the following ground:- 1. It is established fact that the CC is the consumer of OP-1 as the amount of Rs.13500/- paid by the CC vide bill No.80730, dated 16.10.2009 for the purchase of the LCD in question. It is also established that the CC had to repeatedly visit the service centre of OP-2 to get the LCD in question repaired. We feel that OP-1 can not absolve himself of any responsibility even if the CC had considered the offer of replacement made by OP-2. 2. It is very much clear from the legal notice sent by the CC to OP-1 that the matter was in the knowledge of OP-1, but failed to come forward with any reply to the legal notice. Whereas after the filing of the present complaint by the CC OP-1 appeared in the Forum, but still did not own up the responsibility of redressing the genuine grievance of the CC. 3. OP-1 having raised objections to the requirement of expert evidence in order to establish the fact about the LCD having the alleged defect, which is beyond repair. It is nothing, but an attempt by OP-1 to shield himself. Whereas the repeated attempts made by OP-2 to repair the same did not yield any result. We feel that in the present circumstances even the OP-1 did not himself look into the defective LCD and give a definite reply as to the proper functioning of the LCD in question. 4. On the above observations and having gone through the facts of the complaint, we are of the view that CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. We direct the OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.13500/- and take back the defective LCD at their own cost. We also burden OP-1 with Rs.7000/- as litigation charges and Rs.5000/- as compensation, failing which OP-1 shall pay the amount of Rs.18500/- (Rs.13500/-+ Rs.5000/-) to the complainant @18% from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization besides the cost of litigation. 5. OP-1 is directed to comply with the above order within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. 6. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the record room. Announced 08.08.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHAMRA) PRESIDENT
(MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
