Haryana

Karnal

CC/495/2022

Rohit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Premium Lifestyal And Fashion India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Arora

13 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 495 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.26.08.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:13.03.2023

 

Rohit Kumar aged about 38 years son of Shri Asa Nand, resident of house no.753, Gali no.5, R.K. Puram, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Premium Lifestyle and Fashion India Pvt. Ltd. plot/Khasra no.208/17/2 Min, 18,19 and 20, village Farukhnagar, Gurugram.

 

2.     OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.  UB  City 24, Vittal Mallya Road, K.G. Halli, D’souza Layout, Ashok Nagar Bengalure-560001 Bengaluru Bangalore KA 560001.

 

3.     OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (Service Centre) SCO no.347, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal, Haryana 122002.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Manoj Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite Parties exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 23.12.2021, complainant had placed online order for purchasing a OnePlus Y series 100 CM (40 inches) Full HD LED Smart Anroid TV, from the OP no.1. OP no.1 delivered the same on 24.12.2021, for a total consideration of Rs.19,353/-. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the said LED and OP no.3 is the authorized service centre of the OP no.2. At the time of purchase, OPs had given one year warranty on product and one year additional warranty of Panel, duly mentioned in the aforesaid invoice. After 6/7 months of purchase of LED, it started creating problem, a technical fault has been occurred in the said LED, due to such fault LED had started becoming power off in running condition and problem started occurring 10 times in one hour.  Due to the said fault, on 24.06.2022 complainant approached to OPs through customer care toll free number and requested for repair of the technical defect from the LED, in response to this, OPs had lodged complaint vide case ID no.220722-008857 and assured that within 7-10 days the authorized engineer of the company would make his visit at the house of the complainant for the repair of said LED, but after lapse of 10-15 days nobody had come from the side of the OP for resolving the issue/repair of said LED. Complainant again lodged the complaint with the OPs and on this on 26.07.2022, OPs had sent an email to the complainant wherein it had been intimated that “delay is due to unavailability of the Spare Part required in the repair procedure” and sought 7 to 10 days time. Thereafter, instead of repairing the LED, on 02.08.2022 OPs had sent another email to complainant wherein it has been again intimated that due to unavailability of the Spare Part they could not repair the LED and sought 7 to 10 days time. It is further averred that on 04.08.2022, complainant received another email, in which previous case ID no.220722-008857 has been closed and new case ID no.220725-006169 has been generated by the company of the OPs, but neither any satisfactory specific intimation has been given to the complainant nor till date the fault/defect of said LED has been cured/repaired by the OPs. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs so many times and requested to repair the LED in question but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and all the times it has been intimated that required spare parts is not available with the OPs. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 31.10.2022 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of emails dated 26.07.2022, 02.08.2022 and 04.08.2022 Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 27.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.             As per version of complainant, he purchased LED in question from the OP no.1 with the warranty of one year. The said LED has become defective during the warranty period. Complainant approached the OPs for repair of the LED in question but OPs failed to repair the same due to unavailability of the spare parts. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for replacement of the defective LED or to refund the cost of the same as the same is having manufacturing defect but OPs failed to do so.

6.             To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of emails dated 26.07.2022, 02.08.2022 and 04.08.2022 Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. It is evident from said emails Ex.C2 to Ex.C4,  the LED in question has become defective during the warranty period and OPs have failed to resolve the problem in the LED due to unavailability of the spare parts. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte, thus the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted. It was the duty of the OPs to repair or replace the LED in question within warranty period, but OPs have failed to do so. The LED in question has not been repaired by the OPs due to unavailability of the spare parts, for the said act of the OPs, complainant cannot be blamed for. It was the duty of the OPs to replace the LED in question with a new model or refund the cost of the LED if the spare parts were not available with them, but the OPs have failed to do so. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the LED in question is having a manufacturing defect and the OPs have failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. Hence the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the LED in question with new one of the same make, model and same price which was purchased by the complainant.  However, it is hereby made clear if the LED of the same make and model is not available with the OPs, then the OPs will return the cost of the LED i.e. Rs.19,353/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.4000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. However, complainant is directed to handover the old LED to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:13.03.2023                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member