Haryana

Ambala

CC/97/2023

RISHI . - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.G ELECTRONICS . - Opp.Party(s)

RAJEEV SACHDEVA

14 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	97 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	03.03.2023
Date of decision	:	14.06.2024

 

Rishi son of Shri Sanjay Kumar Gulati, resident of House No.786, Sector-10, Ambala City.

…. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. R.G.Electronics, SCO 61, Prem Nagar, Ambala City. PIN 134003, through its Authorized Signatory Mobile No.92537-13000.

 

2. Union Electronics (Authorized Service Centre), Rai Market Ambala Cantt. PIN 133001, through its Shri Harbans Singh Proprietor Mobile No.8398020200.

 

3. Intex Technologies India Limited, A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, Delhi, PIN 110020, through its Shri Narender Bansal Authorized Signatory.

 

2^nd address:- Intex Technologies India Limited, A-12, Hosiery Complex Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, PIN 201305, through its Shri narender Bansal Authorized Signatory. 

.…. Opposite Parties

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    OPs No.1 & 3 already ex parte.      

                    Defence of OP No.2 already struck off.      

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them-

i) To replace the defective LCD TV of the complainant with a new one or in alternate to refund the price of the said LCD TV i.e Rs.37,120/- paid by the complainant in purchasing the same alongwith interest @18% per annum.

ii) To pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are the complainant has purchased a new LCD TV of Intex Company Modal No.5U5505 from OP No.1, on making payment of Rs.37,120/-, vide Invoice No.759 dated 18.02.2021, within warranty of 3 years from the manufacturer company i.e OP No.3. OP No.1 is a dealer of OP No.3, OP No.2 is an authorized service centre of OP No.3 and OP No.3 is the manufacturer of LCD TV. After the purchase of the above said LCD TV, complainant kept the same in use for sometimes i.e hardly for some days and soon thereafter it started giving troubles and the said LCD TV was not working properly and feeling inconvenience, complainant at once approached the OP No.1, in the month of December 2021 and disclosed about the defect appeared in the LCD TV, at which the OP No.1 sent complainant to OP No.2 being their customer service centre and apprised about the defect, then the technician of the OP no.2 visited the house of the complainant and rectified the LCD TV and it worked hardly 8-9 months smoothly and soon after it stopped functioning and complainant again approached to the OP No.2 and it said firstly have to register online complaint, only then out technician will check LCD TV, on the asking of the OP No.2, complainant registered the complaint No.C100595110109 dated 05.10.2022 and after that the engineer of OPs No.2 & 3 visited the house of complainant and they told complainant to pay Rs.7174/- as cost of part of LCD TV and Rs.700/- as visiting charges to rectify the LCD TV. Complainant was shocked to hear about this and told them that the LCD TV is under the warranty of 3 years and instead of replacement of LCD TV with new one, OPs demanded Rs.7174/- + Rs.700/- then they disclosed that LCD TV having manufacturing defect that’s why it is not working, so we are not sure if after replacement of the parts, it will work smoothly or not, soon after complainant telephonic talked with OP No.1 and asked the replacement of his LCD TV as assurance was given by OP No.1 and it was adamant and started abusing complainant and after that engineer of OP No.2 left the house of the complainant without repairing/replacing the LCD TV. After some days the complainant approached to the OP No.3 and requested him to replace the said LCD TV with a new one, but they are not to bother the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant paid the hard earns money to purchase the said LCD having a warranty of three years through out of India from the date of its purchased. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant made several requests to all the OPs on telephonic calls but inspite of redressing the grievance of the complaint, the OPs have been harassing the complainant by not to replace. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.1 & 3 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.05.2023.
4.           Despite availing number of opportunities, after putting appearance, when OP No.2 did not file written version, its defence was struck of by this Commission vide order dated 05.09.2023.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither repairing the defective LCD TV of Intex Company during warranty period nor replacing the same nor refunding the amount paid by the complainant, the OPs indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.
8.           The complainant purchased the LCD TV in question from the OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.3, vide invoice dated 18.02.2021, amounting to Rs.37,120/-, Annexure C-1. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the month of December 2021, the LCD TV was not working properly and on his complaint, the OP No.2 sent an engineer at his residence, who repaired the same. He further argued that hardly 8-9 months, the said LCD TV again stopped working and the complainant registered online complaint No.C100595110109 dated 05.10.2022, the OPs No.2 and 3 visited at his residence, who repaired the same and they told to pay Rs.7,174/- as cost of part of LCD TV and Rs.700/-as visiting charges, vide job sheet Annexure C-5. The engineer of OPs No.2 and 3 told the complainant that the defect of LCD TV is not repairable, as its manufacturing defect and assured that OP No.1 will replace the defected TV with new one as per warranty policy. However, neither the OPs considered his complaint nor replaced the LCD TV with new one. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure C-6) vide postal receipt Annexure C-7. It may be stated here that none of the OPs have preferred to appear before this Commission and rebut the above said version of the complainant. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant which is duly supported by her affidavit and other supporting documents. Since the LCD of the complainant got defective within warranty period and the OPs could not rectify the problem occurred in it, therefore, the OP No.3 being the manufacturer, OP No.2 being authorized service centre and OP No.1 being the seller, are liable to replace the said defective LCD TV in question with the new one of the same model and if they are not in position to replace the same, then refund the amount of Rs.37,120/-. They are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her alongwith litigation expenses.
9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally, in the following manner:-

1. To replace the defective LCD TV in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. If they are not in position to replace the same, then refund the amount of Rs.37,120/-.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.           

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 14.06.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President