Delhi

East Delhi

CC/91/2015

HARMEET - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAZZLE DEZZLE - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.91/2015:

In the matter of:        

Sh. Harmeet Singh

S/o. Sh. Sohan Singh

R/o. 57, Govind Park, Krishna Nagar,

Delhi – 110 051

            Complainant 

Vs

 

M/s. Razzle Dazzle Electronics

Off. : F – 3/28, Krishna Nagar,

Delhi – 110 051

 

M/s. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.

          A – 25, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Indl. Estate,

          Sahibabad, Delhi – 110 044

Respondents

 

                                                                                    Date of Admission – 19/02/2015

                                                                           Date of Order           - 02/11/2015

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member:

 

 

The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 23/05/2014 the complainant purchased a Samsung LED UA32H4100ARMXL-PANEL vide Invoice No.SC2442 for Rs.30,900/-.  It is alleged that right from the day of its purchase the LED was giving problem viz., zoomed image and did not fit the LED frame.  Complaint approached Respondent No.I who assured him that a complaint has been lodged by it with Respondent No.II and its executive would revert to him within 24 hrs.  After two days the executive of the respondent Mr.Khan from Okhla Office visited the house of the complainant, checked the LED and found that it was having Software problem. He updated the software problem but it recurred and beside the aforesaid problems the LED also showed a gap of half an inch between the boundary of the image & the frame of the LED and on connecting the Play Station 2 the image did not fit in the frame of the LED from three sides.  Again a complaint was lodged on 19/08/2014 vide Complaint No.8421625234 with the respondent. An executive of the respondent Sh.Ranveer Singh attended the complaint and told that the Setup Box was faulty but despite changing the same the problem persisted. On the request of the complainant for the refund of the cost of the said LED Sh.Vikas Jain, an executive of the respondent, collected the documents for the approval for refund or replacement and assured him that he will get the within 5 to 7 days but in vain.  It is alleged thaton 27/09/2014 he received a call from the Service Centre of the respondent that his approval has been rejected.  Even notice to the respondent was of no consequence.  Despite repeated visits to the shop of Respondent No.I his grievance has not been redressed till date.  It is in these circumstances that the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.30,900/-, the cost of the LED, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.15,000/- as the litigation cost.

Notices were issued to the respondents but none put up appearance and case proceeded exparte against them. Notice to Respondent No.II was returned back with the remark “Refused”.  In these circumstances it shall be deemed that service upon the Respondent No.II is sufficient.  No Written Statement filed by it.

Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his case has not been controverted by the respondents.

Heard and perused the record.

On perusal of the record the fact of purchase of a Samsung LED UA32H4100ARMXL-PANEL vide Invoice No.SC2442 dated23/05/2014 for Rs.30,900/- from Respondent No.I is not in dispute. Out of Rs.30,900/-, Rs.27,466.67/- is the cost of the said LED and VAT thereon is Rs.3,433.33/- as is evident from the copy of the said Invoice filed on record. In the case in hand, it is evident on perusal of the contents of the e-mail dated 09/12/2014 of the Respondent No.II that the complainant had lodged a complaint with it in respect of the said LED vide Complaint No.8421625234.  This confirms the submission of the complainant with regard to the lodging of a complaint vide the said compliant number on 19/08/2014 i.e., after about only two months from the date of its purchase.It is evident from the e-mail dated 09/12/2014 that theRespondent No.II had admitted the fact that the main PCB of the LED in question was faulty and it need to be replaced.  Though they had agreedto repair the said LED free of cost as it was under warranty as on 09/12/2014 but they have specifically refused to exchange the said product.  It is pertinent to mention here that it is also admitted in the said e-mail that the said LED was in warranty as on 09/12/2014.It is relevant to mention here that though the Respondent No.II had been proceeded exparte but it has the right to participate in the proceedings to assist this Forum to arrive at a fair and judicious decision.  The fact that even after being proceededexparte in this matter the Respondent No.IIit did not put up appearance at the time of arguments.  From this we draw an inference that they were in knowledge of this fact that the defects in LED had chosen not to contest the present complaint and the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant shall be deemed to have been admitted by it.  Further, the affidavit filed in evidence by the complainant has also not been controverted by the respondents.  It is a settled law that uncontroverted evidences cannot be disbelieved and there is no reason for us to disbelievethe evidence of complainant in this regard.  In these circumstances, it shall be taken as true. 

 

Complainant has failed to make out any case against the Respondent No.I.  As such it is exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.

Taking into consideration the discussion and observations made supra, we are of the view that the Respondent No.II was deficient in providing services to the complainant.  We direct the respondents to pay to the complainant in all Rs.35,000/- to the complainant and this amount shall include the refund of the cost of the LED, the compensation for harassment meted out to him and the cost of this litigation.  The complainant shall hand over the old LED to the Respondent No.II at the time of receiving the amount so awarded to him.  Let this amount also be paid within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest over this amount @9% p.a. from the date of order till it is finally paid.

Copy of the order to be sent to all the parties as per rules.

 

   (Dr. P.N. Tiwari)                                      (Poonam Malhotra)                                 (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                Member                                                President