Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/325

RAHUL BABBAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution: 13.05.2016

Complaint Case. No.325/16                                           Date of order:15.07.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Rahul Babbar B-331,  2^nd Floor,  Hari Nagar,  New Delhi-110064.                                                                                                                                         Complainant

                  

VERSUS

1.        Sargam  India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-21, Opposite Metro  Pillar No. 403, Vishal  Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027.

                                                                                                              Opposite party no.1

2.        Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. ,  12^th  Floor, Ambience  Tower, Ambience  Island, NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002

                                                                                     Opposite party no.2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Shri Rahul Babbar named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

against  Sargam Electronics  Pvt. Ltd.  and an other stating that he  on 28.09.2013 purchased Panasonic LED TH-L29B6DX Model  serial no. 130629E05963 from opposite party no.1  manufactured by opposite party no. 2  for sale consideration of Rs. 22,900/- .  The LED   on 03.04.2016 within warranty stopped working. On 04.04.2016 he made complaint no. R040416017043  to the service center of the opposite party  no.2 .  On 05.04.2016 engineer of the opposite party no. 2 visited the complainant, checked  the LED and told that the panel of the  LED was out of order.   They are ready to pay 50% amount of the sale  consideration.  The complainant  was  not satisfied.  Hence  the complaint for direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 22.900/- sale price of the  LED and pay Rs.  50,000/-as compensation  on account of mental and physical pain and agony suffered   by him. 

            Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties.  But despite service none of the opposite parties appeared, therefore, they were  proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.10.2010.

            When Sh. Rahul Babbar complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit, he filed his affidavit  narrating facts of the complaint.  He also relied upon copy of invoice no. S/RJ-6093 dated 28.09.2013 and letter dated  12.04.2016 written by the  opposite party no. 2 to the complainant.  From perusal  of the invoice  dated 28.09.2013  and letter dated 12.04.2016 it reveals  that the complainant on 28.09.2013 purchased  Panasonic LED TH-L29B6DX Model  serial no. 130629E05963 from opposite party no.1  manufactured by   opposite party no. 2  for sale  consideration   of       

Rs. 22,900/- .  The LED stopped working on 03.04.2016 within  warranty .   The  opposite party failed to repair the LED and offered  50% of the amount of the sale consideration of Rs. 22,900/- or concession of 50% of amount on purchase of a new LED of more value than the LED of the complainant.

            We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material available on the record carefully and thoroughly.

            The version of the complainant and ex-parte evidence led by him has remained  unrebutted and unchallenged , therefore,  there is no reason to disbelieve  the  unrebutted  and unchallenged  version  and ex-parte evidence of the complainant.  The complainant  from the unrebutted  and unchallenged version , affidavit, invoice dated  28.09.2013, letter dated 12.04.2016  has been able to  prove that he  purchased Panasonic LED TH-L29B6DX Model  serial no. 130629E05963 from opposite party no.1  manufactured by opposite party no. 2  for sum of Rs. 22,900/-.  The LED stopped working on 03.04.2016 within warranty but the opposite parties   failed to repair  the LED and  offered 50%  amount of the sale consideration of Rs, 22,900/-  of the LED or 50%  concession of sale price on purchase of new LED of more value  than the LED  of the complainant.  It shows that the LED became faulty within warranty and opposite parties failed to repair the same, therefore,  there  is deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Resultantly the complaint succeeds and is herebyallowed.  The opposite party no.2 is directed to pay Rs. 13,000/- depreciated value of the LED with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till actual realization and Rs. 2,500/- as compensation on account of mental and physical agony  and litigation expenses to the complainant.   

Order pronounced on :  15.07.2017

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT