Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/25

Sartaj Singh Satyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sansui India Cooperate office - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sumit Pasricha

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  25 of 09.04.2018

                                 Date of decision                     :     28.08.2018

 

Sartaj Singh Satyal, son of Hardev Singh, resident of House No.304, Dashmesh Nagar, Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Sansui India Cooperate Office at Plot No.296, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon, Phase-2, Gurgaon 122016, through its Managing Director/authorized signatory  

2. Gill Electronics Sale & Repair for Electronics & Electrical Appliances Lehri Shah Mandir Road, Near Dr. Sardana Clinic, Ropar, through its prop.  

   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                       Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SH. AMRINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Sumit Pasricha, Adv. counsel for complainant 

O.Ps. No.1 & 2 exparte 

 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the LED with new one or to refund of Rs.24900/- with interest @ 18% per annum; to pay Rs.50,000/- as harassment; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that complainant had purchased LED 32" make Sansui Model LEDTVSJB32FBBIA Sr. No.111112110208100589 from OPs on 30.3.2017 and had paid Rs.24900/- to the OP NO.2 in cash and it has issued invoice No.597 dated 30.3.2017. At the time of purchasing the LED the OP NO.2 has given one year warranty and also told that if any defect arose then the company will resolve the same free of cost and if needed to replace the same then the same will be replaced with new one. From the very beginning of purchasing the said LED there is manufacturing defect. After the purchasing of LED, the complainant many times complained with the OP No.2 as well as OP NO.1 and many times the technician of OPs were come to the house of the complainant and checked the LED but the defect was not removed till today.

3.    On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.06.2018.

4.    On notice, O.P. No.2 appears through counsel and stating therein that OP NO.2 has already inform the said matter to the OP No.1 and OP NO.1 is the sole responsible for the technical problem. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

5.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents copy of bill dated 30.3.2017 Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.   

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Sumit Pasricha, argued that Sartaj Singh, purchased LED on 30.3.2017 from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.24900/- manufactured by OP No.1. After the purchase of the LED it started creating trouble and complainant informed the OP No.2 but no result. Now the LED is not in working condition. Complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OPs, the complaint be allowed with the prayer either to replace the LED with new one or to refund of Rs.24900/- with costs.

8.    As per the file OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte and OP No.2 filed reply which on the file but proceeded against exparte on 27.8.2018, despite giving sufficient opportunities to led the evidence.

9.    Complainant has come present with the prayer that he purchase the LED for a sum of Rs.24900/- dated 30.3.2017 and due to non working it amounts deficiency. Complainant is resident of district Roper, whereas OP No.2 has the office in this district. So it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable, this forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

10.   Coming to the real controversy, complainant pleaded he purchased LED and placed on file photocopy of the bill Ex.C1 dated 30.3.2017 with the warranty of one year. Beside this complainant tendered his affidavit which is inconsonance to the complaint. So there is no need to repeat the facts of the affidavit. During the course of arguments, complainant counsel admitted that there is no document on the file qua the technical defect of LED, nor the expert opinion on the file. Learned counsel pointed out para No.4 & 6 of the reply filed by the OP No.2 in which OP NO.2 admitted that qua the defect of manufacturer was informed. Beside this there is nothing on the file.

11.    No doubt, complainant not placed on file any expert opinion      and also not produced on file any invoice/job card issued by     any of the care centre. In the absence of adequate evidence, it is     not possible to hold that the defect in the LED purchased by the complainant from OP NO.2. But after perusal of the file it         reveals that complainant alleged defect and OP No.2 who is the dealer admitted the defect as informed the manufacturer. So the     relief of complainant qua the replacement or refund of          Rs.24900/- is not the legal and genuine claim. Rather         complainant is entitled to get the LED repaired through the         dealer because dealer sold the LED and then admitted the    defect.

12.    In the light of above discussion made above, the complaint qua the relief of replacement or refund of Rs.24900/- stand rejected.        However, in the interest of justice, OP NO.2 is directed to call    the complainant within one month from the receipt of certified          copy of this order along with LED and get the LED repaired         from the authorized authority/care centre. With further direction if the working not improved then recommend to the           manufacturer for the replacement or refund of Rs.24,900/-.    Under the peculiar circumstances, parties are ordered to bear         their own cost.     

13.    The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties         forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the      file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                      (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .28.08.2018                            PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (AMRINDER SINGH)

                                                                             MEMBER