Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/183

Balkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sarbjit Singh Brar

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      183 of 2019

Date of Institution :  26.07.2019

Date of Decision :    04.02.2020

Balkar Singh aged about 53 years, son of Chanan Singh r/o House No.102, Kasam Bhatti, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                               

.....Complainant

Versus

1.     Onida MIRC Electronics Ltd. Onida House, G-1, M I D C, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 through its Managing Director.

2.     National Sales Corporation, Near Railway Station, Kotkapura, Near Chaman Printing Press, Kotkapura District Faridkot-151204, through its Proprietor.

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

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sarabjit Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Jagdeesh Maini, Ld Counsel for OP-1

              OP-2 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs

cc no.183 of 2019

seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective LED with new one free of costs and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.85,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one LED Android Model TV of Onida from OP-2 vide bill no. 1129 dated 22.02.2019 on cash payment of Rs.28,000/-for giving the same as a gift to his son in law in his marriage. Preliminary check of said LED was not given by OP-2 and complainant was told by OP-2 that only mechanic of OPs would open the box of LED at the time of installation. It is submitted that during installation, when box was opened, panel of LED was found broken. Complainant immediately brought this fact to the notice of OP-2 who assured him to exchange the said LED as soon as possible, but thereafter, OPs denied to exchange the same. Even legal notice served upon by complainant also served no purpose. grievance of the complainant is that OPs deliberately sold the defective LED piece to complainant and despite his several requests and issuance of legal notice to them, they have not done anything needful to replace the said defective broken LED. This act of OPs has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He  has prayed for directions OPs to replace the said LED TV and to pay compensation of Rs.85,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered

 

cc no.183 of 2019

by him besides Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 31.07.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material things from this Forum and has wrongly impleaded OP-1 as part to present complaint. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even no expert report is submitted by complainant. There is no manufacturing defect in said LED and dealer or manufacturing company is not liable for any act of omission attributed to complainant. He purchased the said LED on 22.02.2019 and lodged complaint regarding same on 17.06.2019. Technician of answering OP inspected the product on 19.062019 and found that panel of LED was broken and this breakage of panel was due to internal force by user and not attributable to manufacturing or workmanship defect by manufacturing company. Complainant was informed of estimate of Rs.19,000/-for change of panel, but complainant refused to approve the cost and remained adamant for replacement of

cc no.183 of 2019

broken panel free of costs. Moreover, product in question was not purchased by complainant, rather it was purchased by one Gurwinder Singh and complainant is not their consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                On receipt of Notice OP-2 earlier appeared in the Forum through counsel, but thereafter, counsel for OP-2 gave statement before the Forum that he has no instructions from OP-2 and withdrew the power of attorney given by him on behalf of OP-2. There is no doubt that notice to OP-2 has been duly served and OP-2 has sufficient notice about the present complaint, but nobody appeared in the Forum either in person or through counsel  on date fixed to contest the claim and to file written statement to defend themselves against the allegations levelled by complainant. Therefore, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.10.2019.

6                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-5 and documents Ex C-1 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sandeep Bawa as Ex OP-1/1, document Ex OP-1/2 and thereafter, despite availing sufficient

cc no.183 of 2019

opportunities, he did not conclude his evidence and therefore, vide order dated 15.01.2020 of this Forum, evidence of OP-1 was closed by order of this Forum.

8                                     We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party no.1.

9                                From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased one LED worth Rs.28,000/-from OP-2 against proper bill on 22.02.2019 for giving the same as a gift to his son in law, but when it was unboxed for installation, it was found that panel of LED was broken. Information regarding broken panel was given to OPs, who assured to replace the same, but thereafter, they did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in said LED and dealer or manufacturing company is not liable for any act of omission by complainant. On complaint by complainant, their technician inspected the LED, he found that panel of LED was broken and  as per OPs,  this breakage was due to internal force by user and not due to manufacturing defect. Estimate of Rs.19,000/-for change of panel was given to complainant, but he refused to pay the cost and remained adamant for replacement free of costs. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

cc no.183 of 2019

To prove his pleadings complainant counsel has placed on record copy of document Ex C-1 i.e copy of bill dated 22.02.2019 that proves the pleadings of complainant that he purchased the LED in question from OP-2 for Rs.28,000/-. Through affidavit ExC-5, complainant has tried to reiterate his grievance and has made request for replacement of LED. Moreover, plea taken by OP-2 that complainant is not their consumer as LED in question was purchased by one Gurwinder Singh and not by Balkar Singh, has no legs to stand upon as it is crystal clear from the bill Ex C-1 that in the column of Bill to Party, name of Balkar Singh is written over there and in the column of Name of ‘Ship To Party, name of Gurwinder Singh is mentioned. It also proves the pleading of complainant that he purchased and gifted the said  product to his son in law in his marriage. Further Ex C-3 and Ex C-4 are copies of legal notice and postal stamp that clearly reveal the fact that complainant served notice to OPs wherein he made request to them to replace the said LED.

10                                  In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not replacing the panel 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 panel 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 is hereby allowed.

cc no.183 of 2019

OPs are directed to replace the defective LED with new one of same model within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order. Complainant is directed to return the broken LED to OPs on receipt of new one. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-as consolidated compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 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 open Forum:

Dated: 04.02.2020

Member                              President                               

(P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)