DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 340/14

Smt. Kamla Devi Gupta

W/o Late Shri Kailash Chand Gupta

R/o B-704, Ganesh Nagar – II

Near Krishna Mandir, Shakarpur

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

Onida Service Centre

Onida House – II, Mahal Industrial Estate

Near Paper Box Off.

Mahakali Caves Road

Andheri (E) Mumbai – 93

Through its authorized person

M/s Navrang Audio video Pvt. Ltd.

D-10, Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

Through its authorized person                                                   ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 28.04.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 15.07.2016

Judgment Passed on : 18.07.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Smt. Kamla Devi Gupta has filed a complaint against M/s. Onida Service Centre (OP-1) and M/s. Navrang Audio Video Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), praying for replacement of LCD TV, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 21,000/-  as litigation cost.

2.        The facts in brief are that on 12.04.2013, Smt. Kamla Devi Gupta (complainant) purchased ONIDA LCD 24 HR from OP-2 for a sum of Rs. 14,000/- against invoice no. 570 dated 12.04.2013.  It has been stated that after two months, the said LCD started creating problem such as picture quality reduced and the sound system was not functioning properly.  The complainant informed to OP-2 who sent their executive and the problem of the LCD was got removed as stated by executive of OP-2.  Again, after 15 days, the LCD started creating problem, which was informed to OP-2, but he did not pay any heed despite repeated requests and visits.  It is further stated that the complainant requested and visited the centre of OP-2 to get the LCD repaired and lastly, on 03.04.2014,    OP-2 refused to do the needful.  The complainant lastly reported her complaint on 04.03.2014, vide complaint no. 14030686380100, but OP-2 did not respond at all.    Thus, it is stated that by not removing the problem of LCD, the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony and it has resulted in deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant has prayed that the respondent be directed to provide a new LCD; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs. 21,000/- on account of legal expenses.

3.        In the written statement, OP-1 has taken various pleas such as the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious.  Complainant has not approached to the forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the facts.  It has further been stated that engineer of OP-1 visited the complainant and told that main board of the TV have become non-functional which will take about some days to get the new main board.  When it was arranged and engineer of OP-1 visited on 26.04.2014 for replacing the main board, the complainant refused to allow to repair the LCD TV.  It is further stated that main board of particular model was not available which has resulted into delay.  It is further stated that the complainant has never filed any complaint before OP-1.  It has further been stated that it has been held by number of judgments by the Apex Court that if the defect can be removed by removing one part, it was not necessary to replace the whole unit, even in case of manufacturing defect.  Other pleas of the complainant have also been denied. 

OP-2 has not contested the complaint in spite of service.

            In support of her case, the complainant examined herself.  However, OP-1 has examined Shri Naresh Tomar.  He has deposed on affidavit and has reiterated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. 

4.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP-1, though the complainant has not appeared to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-1 that the complainant has failed to prove her case, as she has not deposed on affidavit.  Admittedly, complainant has not filed her evidence.  Since, the complainant has not filed her evidence on affidavit, nor has placed on record any job-sheet except the complaint alongwith 2-3 documents such as customer warranty card, job-sheet of dated 06.10.2014 and retail invoice, it cannot be gathered as to what was the defect in LCD set.  The defect, as stated by OP-1, has to be accepted.  The fact that representative/engineer of OP-2 visited the complainant for getting the main board replaced and the complainant has not allowed him.  Certainly, the complainant was at fault.  Thus, in the absence of the testimony of the complainant coupled with any document, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service.  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. 

In view of the above evidence, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complainant has failed to prove the same.  Hence, her case is dismissed.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

                          (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member                 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President