Delhi

North East

CC/344/2022

Rahul Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

OnSite Electro Services Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.344/22

In the matter of:

 

	Rahul Kumar S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand, H.No. B-174, Gali No. 10, Main 30 Futa Road, Johripur, Extenstion, New Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Onsite Electro Services Pvt. Ltd., Through its Directors Office at: Skyline Icon, G-3A, 86/92, Andheri-Kurla Road, Chimatpada Moral, Andheri East, Mumbai 400059   Also At: Shed No. 9, DSIDC Sheds, Scheme 1, Phase II, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110021	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

24.08.2022 24.05.2023 21.09.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 02.10.2019, Complainant had purchased TCL 4k ultra HD Smart LED TV, from Amazon for a sum of Rs. 28,999/- with 18 months warrantee. At the time of purchasing the above extended warranty, the Opposite Party provided various scheme/offer by giving the lucrative offer for purchasing the extended warranty. On 21.10.2019, Opposite Party again requested for the extended warranty scheme. It is his case that on request of the Opposite Party, Complainant purchased the extended warranty on the said product for two years and plan/scheme was start from 02.04.2021 and valid till 01.04.2023. On 13.07.2022, the said product started troubling and problem came through HDMI Port of the T.V and in this regard Complainant made a complaint with the Opposite Party. On 21.07.2022, a technician came to the house of the Complainant and check the said product and stated that they took the LED TV to the service centre for proper checking and if there was any defect then they would removed and handover the said product to the Complainant and this process would take 7 to 8 days. It is his case that technician of the Opposite Party further stated that the LED TV was completely ok, so they replace the HDMI port in the service centre. On 22.07.2022, official of Opposite Party came and took the LED TV from the house of the Complainant. It is his case that at the time of handing over the LED TV to the service centre, it was working properly. After 2- 3 days Complainant called the service centre and asked about the LED TV on which the official of Service Centre told the Complainant that HDMI port had been changed and Complainant would receive the LED TV in 2-3 days. On 30.07.2022, Complainant received a call from the service centre and told the Complainant that screen of the LED TV was damaged and they need to change the screen and total expenses of screen was Rs. 26,000/- and it would be borne by the Complainant. It is his case that Opposite Party neither replaced the said product nor refunded the bill amount to the Complainant as agreed earlier at the time of giving the extended warranty. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs. 28,999/- i.e. the cost of the said product, Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.    
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.01.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant in person and we have also perused the file. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 28,999/- i.e. cost of the LED TV to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of  Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 21.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)