Delhi

North

CC/160/2015

AMBHOJ KUMAR SINHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAKTI ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

ROOM NO.2, OLD CIVIL SUPPLY BUILDING,
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/160/2015
 
1. AMBHOJ KUMAR SINHA
CHAMBER NO-1, C.K. DAPTHARY BLOCK, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SHAKTI ENTERPRISES
3579, NETAJI SUBHASH MARG, DARYA GANJ,
DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. MOHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Subhash Gupta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Shahina MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

O R D E R

SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a LED T.V. 40” with its brand name AOC bearing Model No.LE40A1330/61, Serial No.EDCC8YA000408 from the O.P-1 for a sum of Rs.37,800/- vide invoice No.4427 dated 27.11.2013.  On 06.07.2015 suddenly the display on the TV got blurred.  There was a shadow like display on the TV.  It is alleged that the TV was still under the warranty period.  It is further alleged that complainant immediately made complaint on phone and one Mr. Arjuna tried to resolve the problem by instructing the complainant to reset the TV. However, the problem was persisting even after the reset.  It is alleged in the complaint that despite telephonic and written complaints no efforts were made by the O.Ps to rectify the complaint.  On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to pay the price of the LED TV amount of Rs.37,800/- and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.

2.     The O.Ps were duly served but they did not put an appearance, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 30.11.2015.  Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.

3.     We have gone through the record of the case filed by the complainant.  The complainant has filed cash memo as proof of purchase of the T.V., documents showing that the product was under warranty for three years.  The complainant has also filed copies of emails sent to the O.Ps regarding complaint in the product.  The complainant has also filed affidavit in support of his case.  The version put forth by the complainant remains uncontroverted as the O.Ps have chosen not to contest the case.  As such there is no reason to dis-believe the contentions made by the complainant.

4.     From the complaint it is evident that the T.V. set was purchased on 27.11.2013 and the problem in the set cropped up on 06.07.2015 which shows that the complainant has enjoyed the product for more than one year and eight months.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if 50% of cost price is refunded to the complainant.  Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.18,500/- towards the cost of the T.V. set.  The complainant is further awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards mental agony and harassment which will also include the cost of litigation.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

  Announced on this 11th day of February, 2016.        

 

 

(K.S. MOHI)                   (SUBHASH GUPTA)                     (SHAHINA)

   President                            Member                                   Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. MOHI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subhash Gupta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Shahina]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.