DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 705/14
Shri Manoj Kumar
Through Power of Attorney
R/o G-31, First Floor
Flat No. 1, Aruna Park
Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainant
Vs.
- M/s. Prince Audio & Video
E-55A, Main Vikas Marg
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092
- Mr. Sunder
Sales Executive/Representative
M/s. Prince Audio & Video
E-55A, Main Vikas Marg
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092
- M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.
C/o Versatile Care
402/71, SS Tower, Civil Lines, Delhi ...Opponents
Date of Institution: 02.09.2014
Judgment Reserved for : 08.09.2016
Judgment Passed on : 27.09.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
JUDGEMENT
The complaint has been filed by the complainant Shri Manoj Kumar against M/s. Prince Audio Video, the authorised dealer (OP-1) and Mr. Sunder, the Sales Executive/Representative of OP-1 (OP-2) and M/s. Panasonic, manufacturer of LED TV (OP-3).
2. The brief facts of the complainant are that the complainant purchased 47 inch LED TV on 18.05.2014 for Rs. 71,500/- from OP-1. At the time of purchase, the complainant was assured that he was paying for 2014 model. Complainant made down payment of Rs. 23,834/- and rest of the amount was financed by Bajaj Finserv Ltd. It was further stated that the LED TV was installed on 19.05.2014 by the representative of OP-3 and it was then the complainant came to know that the manufacturing date of the product was May 2012 instead of 2014, which was confirmed by the customer care of OP-3.
Thereafter, complainant contacted OP-1 and OP-2 on 20.05.2014 and asked them to replace the outdated product, to which OP-1 and OP-2 refused. Legal notice dated 27.05.2014 was sent to OP1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed this complaint praying for refund of cost of LED TV and taking back the product, compensation for Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Notice of the complaint was served on all the OPs, but none filed their WS, so averments made in the complaint remain uncontroverted, OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte.
4. We have heard the arguments of the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the cost of LED TV amounting to Rs. 71,500/- was refunded to him by OP-3 vide cheque bearing no. 597092 dated 20.05.2015, drawn on Standard Chartered Bank. Due to this clause (i) of the prayer clause has become infructuous. What remains to be decided is the compensation for mental agony and harassment.
The complainant purchased LED TV by paying price of the latest model, but OP-1 and OP-2 misrepresented and delivered outdated model to the complainant. The complainant has suffered due to indulgence of OP-1 and OP-2 in unfair trade practice. OP-1 is vicariously liable for the acts of OP-2 as OP-2 is sales executive of OP-1. Therefore OP-1 is directed to pay Rs. 7,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation.
The above said directions are to be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order. If the awarded sum is not paid in the stipulated period, it will carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realisation.
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
