O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had purchased a 21inch Colour T.V. Brand Videocon from O.P-1 and manufactured by O.P-2 vide Retail Invoice S.No.6033, Book No.121 dated 18.08.2013 for Rs.4,600/- with warranty for one year. It is alleged that T.V. proved to be defective within a short time after purchase namely i.e. after 3 months. Subsequently complainant lodged the complaint on customer care No.39404040 of O.P-2. It is further alleged that technician of O.P-2 attended to the complaint of the complainant vide job sheet No.DEL28/03/360 dated 01.04.2014. It is alleged that when the T.V was not functioning properly the complainant again lodged the complaint with O.P-2. On the third visit of the technician, he called the O.P-1 and out rightly told him and the complainant that O.P-1 had sold old T.V. to the complainant. It is alleged that after 10 days technician of O.P-1 visited the complainant and took the I.C. from the defective T.V. and promised to repair the T.V. thoroughly but there was no response for the next 15 days. It is further alleged that on the enquiry of the complainant O.P-1 handed over 14 inch old T.V. to the complainant. After 3 weeks O.P-2 replaced the I.C. after repairs on 08.08.2014. It is alleged that the T.V. of the complainant is still not working properly and she was facing lot of problems while watching T.V. It is alleged that complainant has made various complaints and reminders but all in vain. On these facts complainant prays that OPs be directed to pay the cost of the T.V. i.e. Rs.4,600/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P-1 did not put an appearance despite service and accordingly it was proceeded ex-parte on 09.12.2014. However, O.P-2 filed reply by denying the contents of complaint but admitted that the T.V. set manufactured by it was purchased by the complainant from O.P-1. It has been further stated that there was absolutely no deficiency in service because the complaint about the repair of the T.V. set was promptly attended to by the engineer of O.P-2.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts made in the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava, Authorized Representative of OP-2 has already filed affidavit alongwith documents in evidence on behalf of OP-2.
4. During the course of final arguments the authorized representative of O.P-2 appeared before the consumer forum on 30.10.2015 and candidly stated that if the T.V. set of complainant is found beyond repairs they will replace it with new T.V. set. On 23.11.2015 complainant appeared in person. A.R. for O.P-2 also appeared. The complainant stated that she had received a new T.V. set and such she was not claiming the price of the T.V. set but contended that she be awarded compensation for mental harassment suffered by her due to defects in the T.V. set and be also awarded costs. In our opinion considering the overall circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that O.P-2 in all fairness replaced the old T.V. with new T.V. set we find it appropriate if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 3rd day of Decemebr, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
