Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/130/2019

Videocon Industries Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Preet Kamal Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Mittal Adv.

16 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	130 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	02.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	16.12.2019

 

M/s Videocon Industries Limited, Jhandenwalan Tower, Ground Floor, Block E-1, Jhandenwalan, New Delhi – 55 through its authorized representative Mr. Maheshwar Thakur son of Sh. Puran Chand, Aged about 47 years.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

 

1.     Mr. Preet Kamal Singh R/o House No.480, Phase-10, Mohali. 

 

Respondent/Complainant.

 

2.     Dish TV India Ltd., Regd. Office: 18^th Floor, A Wing, Marathon         Futurex, NM Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra –         400013. (Impleaded in place of M/s Videocon D2H Limited,   F373, Phase-8B, Indusrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide order    dated 02.08.2019 as it is now taken over by Dish TV India     Ltd.)

3.     M/s Pinky Electronics, SCO 1113, Sector 22B, Chandigarh.

…..Performa Respondents.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Varun Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Preet Kamal Singh, respondent No.1/complainant in person.

None for respondent No.3 (M/s Pinky Electronics).

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.09.2019.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by opposite party No.1 against order dated 02.05.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’) vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.544 of 2018 filed by the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed and opposite parties No.1 & 2 were directed to refund an amount of Rs.33,014/- to the complainant besides payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation costs. The order was to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, opposite parties No.1 & 2 were to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

2.             It is admitted position on record that the LED, in question, purchased by the complainant was a defective one from the very beginning and was giving trouble.  Despite repaired at various intervals, it did not function well. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the complaint, opposite parties No.1 & 2 offered replacement of the LED with higher model but the complainant declined the said offer, as he had already purchased a new LED. 

3.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion, the Forum while allowing the complaint, rightly, observed that the LED, in question, was suffering from manufacturing defect, for which, replacement was offered and it went out of order within the warranty period. Had the LED, in question, not been defective, there would have been no occasion for opposite parties No.1 & 2 to offer its replacement. The aforesaid finding of the Forum has been assailed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 on the ground that  there is no evidence on record that respondent No.1/complainant has purchased a new LED. It was also argued that merely that the complainant has purchased a new LED does not entitle him for    the refund of the amount, when the appellant/opposite party No.1 was ready to replace the defective LED.

4.             It may be stated here that the prayer made by the complainant in his complaint filed before the Forum was only qua refund of the price of the defective LED, in question, alongwith interest besides awarding compensation and costs of litigation. He never prayed for replacement of the said LED. The offer for replacement of LED made by opposite parties No.1 & 2 during the pendency of complaint before the Forum was a bonafide act just to redress the grievance of the complainant. When it was defective, then why such offer was not made before filing of the complaint and why offer was made only during pendency of the complaint. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 first made the complainant run from pillar to post and then approach the Forum for redressal of his grievance and when the complaint was filed, an offer was made. Deficiency in rendering service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is writ large. Whether the complainant has purchased a new LED or not is his personal concern and opposite parties No.1 & 2 have nothing to do with the same. As the relief sought by the complainant in his complaint was refund of the LED, therefore, in our considered opinion, the Forum rightly awarded the said relief by directing opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the price of the LED, in question. It also rightly awarded compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

5.             Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.      

6.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 is dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 02.05.2019 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.544 of 2018 is upheld.

7.             Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

16.12.2019.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad