CC No.248/2015

(Complaint under section 12 CP ACT 1986)

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, S/o SH. RAJVEER GUPTA, R/o 16/819-E, BAPA NAGAR, PADAM SINGH ROAD, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110005

 ... COMPLAINANT

V/S

1. M/S SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD, THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATROY 51/2, DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD,

OPP. KHALSA COLLEGE, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI – 110005.

                                                                                                   RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., THOUGH IT’S MANAGING DIRECTOR/

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, REGISTERED OFFICE:  A-31, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110044

                      RESPONDENT NO. 2

Coram: Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

            Vikram Kumar Dabas, Member

            ManjuBala Sharma, Member

ORDER                     Date: 07-09-2016

            Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.       The complainant filed this complaint on 24/08/2015 and alleged that he purchased Sony Led KDL – 42W700B for Rs. 64,900/- (Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) on 27/07/2014 from OP No. 1.  After 8 months display of LED TV was not properly working, he contacted OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 and lodged complaints with OP 2 vide request ID No. 25129432 and ID No. 2544107 on 25/08/2015and 26/04/2015 respectively and OP 2 picked up the TV and TV was delivered back to complainant.  As LED was not working properly, therefore again he made a complaint on 11/05/2015 vide request ID No. 25384842 which was attended on 05/06/2015 by the OP 2 and OP 2 picked up LED TV but not delivered till that day.  Despite several reminders and e-mail his problem was not resolved by OPs.  There was deficiency on the part of the OPs hence complainant by way of this complaint prayed that OP be directed to refund the purchase amount of Rs. 64900/-(Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) of LED TV with 18% interest P.A. from the date of Purchase of LED TV till realisaiton,Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) as compensation for harassment and Rs. 25,000-/ Twenty Five Thousand the cost of litigation be awarded to him. 

2.       In reply OP 1 admitted that complainant, purchased LED TV for a price of Rs. 64,900/- (Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) from him, remaining allegations of the complainant were related to the OP 2.In reply OP 2 admitted the purchase of SONY LED TV for Rs. 64,900/- (Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) by the complainant from OP No. 1.  OP 2 also admitted that LCD Panel of the Complainant’s TV was replaced absolutely free of cost and denied rest of the allegations made in the complainant and stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP 2. Hence requested that complaint be dismissed.  Complainant filed rejoinder denied objections filed by OP and reaffirmed the allegations made in the complaint.

3.       In support of complaint, the complainant filed his own affidavit and filed documents Ext – CW 1 to Ext – CW 6.  In support of reply OP No. 2 filed affidavit of PriyankChauhanand exhibited the documents at Ext-OPW 1/1  to - Ext- OPW 1/ 4.

4.       We have heard arguments of the parties, perused file and considered their evidence and documents, written arguments and oral submissions.  In this case points to be considered are as under :-

          (i)      Whether complainant is a consumer?

          (ii)     Whether there is deficiency on the part of OP?

5.       OP 1 and OP 2 both have admitted in their reply that complainant purchased the product of OP 2 from OP 1 for a sale price of Rs. 64,900/- (Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) vide invoice dated 27-07-2014. Therefore admittedly complainant is a consumer.

6.       Complainant’s affidavit and his documents Exh - CW 4 proves that OP2 vide their service job sheet dated 30/05/2015, picked up the complainant’s TV Model No. KDL – 42W700B on 05/06/2015 as it is not denied by the OP.TheDistrict Forum vide its order dated 01/09/2016 directedboth the parties to file affidavit in respect of the possession of the TV.  OPs have failed to file affidavit in compliance of the order dated 01-09-2016 within the time granted but the complainant filed his affidavit and deposed that the above TV is not in his possession.   After reserving the order affidavit of PriyankChauhan on behalf of OP was filed on 06/09/2016 stating that the TV was in a good condition and admitted that the said TV is with the authorized service centre of OP.  So, it is proved that at the time of filing complaint and today defected TV purchased by the complainant was picked up by OP 2 and it is not in the possession of the complainant. 

7.       In these above mentioned circumstances and facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that OPs have sold their defected TV to the complainant and the defective TV is in possession of the opposite party since 05/06/2015 till date.  It proves deficiency on the part of OPs. Hence we directed OPs as under :

          (i)      To refund the sale price of TV i.e. Rs. 64,900/- (Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred) to the complainant.

          (ii)     To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused on him.

          (iii)    Rs. 3000 /- (Three Thousand ) as litigation charges.

Both the parties will be liable to make the payment severally and jointly.  This order will be complied within 30 days and failing with an interest @ 10% per annum will be payable from the date of order, till realisaiton.  

Copy of this order is sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on this ……………......