BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.139 of 2018.
Date of instt.:25.05.2018.
Date of Decision:28.08.2019.
Aman Kohli S/o Sh. V.K.Kohli, r/o House No.2, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax House 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.
- Micromax Service Centre, Gurmeet Singh, c/o H.S.Electronics, 178(R), Model Town, Karnal.
- Ahuja Sales Agency, Gandhi Park Market, Main Bazar, Kaithal-136027.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased one LED Television Model 50C5500FHD from the Op No.3 for the sum of Rs.36,000/-. It is alleged that the said LED was purchased during the special period limited offer from Micromax in which they were providing extended warranty on LED (i.e.1+2 years) w.e.f. 01.10.2015 to 15.11.2015. It is alleged that on 27.02.2018 the said LED Television was not even turning on, so, the complainant made complaint at Micromax Consumer Services No.1800-102-3999 and the same was registered. The authorized engineer of Ops visited the house of complainant on 01.03.2018 and told the complainant that the LED television will be repaired at the earliest. It is further alleged that even after 15 days of registering the complaint, no step was taken by the Ops to repair the LED Television, so, the complainant again registered a complaint at Consumer Services No.1800-102-3999 but this time, no one came to repair the LED Television. The complainant approached the Ops several times to replace the said defective LED but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the Op No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 13.10.2018, whereas Ops No.1 & 2 initially appeared but lateron, they were proceeded against exparte. Op No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 29.11.2018 and Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 11.06.2019. Before proceeding exparte, Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; time-barred; jurisdiction; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, it is stated that the warranty for a new LED Television was only for one year and as per sale letter dt. 01.10.2015, the warranty expires on 30.09.2016. The other contents of complaint are also denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased one LED Television Model 50C5500FHD from the Op No.3 for the sum of Rs.36,000/- vide invoice No.814 dt.05.10.2015, Annexure-C1. We have perused Offer Extended Warranty Annexure C2 wherein it is mentioned that “Offer Applicable for limited period Ist October to 15th November” and as per offer extended warranty Annexure-C2, the warranty is valid for 12 months (manufacturer warranty) + 24 months (extended warranty). It is clear that the complainant purchased the said LED on 05.10.2015 i.e. within the special offer period and as per Offer Extended Warranty Annexure-C2, the warranty of LED television was valid for 12 months i.e. upto 05.10.2016 + 24 months (extended warranty) i.e. upto 05.10.2018. The grievance of the complainant is that the said LED television became defective on 27.02.2018 i.e. within the warranty period with the defect that the said LED Television was not even turning on, so, the complainant made complaint at Micromax Consumer Services No.1800-102-3999 and the same was registered. The authorized engineer of Ops visited the house of complainant on 01.03.2018 and told the complainant that the LED television will be repaired at the earliest but even after 15 days of registering the complaint, no step was taken by the Ops to repair the LED Television. The complainant again registered a complaint at Consumer Services No.1800-102-3999 but this time, no one came to repair the LED Television. The complainant also sent legal notice dt. 12.04.2018 Annexure-C3 to the Ops but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant, receipt of postal receipt Annexure-C4 to Annexure C-6 are placed on the file vide which the legal notice was sent to Ops. Moreover, the complainant has filed the present complaint in this Forum on 25.05.2018 i.e. within the warranty period.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had moved an application on 11.07.2019 for sending the LED television for expert opinion and the said application was allowed by this Forum vide order dt. 11.07.2019. The expert namely Sh. Hitesh Kumar Gera, Instructor Electronics Mech. Govt. I.T.I., Kaithal submitted his report Annexure-A in this Forum on 02.08.2019. We have perused the said report wherein the expert has mentioned that he checked the functioning of LED television and found that the said LED was not working properly and there was no signal on the screen. So, it is clear that the LED television was defective. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure C6. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops were proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. In such like circumstances, we find that the complaint filed by the complainant seems to be genuine and the Ops have sold the defective LED television to the complainant. Hence, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to replace the defective LED television of the complainant with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide invoice No.814 dt. 05.10.2015 Annexure-C1. The complainant is also directed to deposit the old LED television alongwith accessories with the Ops. However, it is made clear that if the said LED television as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.36,000/- as the cost of LED television alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization to the complainant. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:28.08.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
