O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’ against the Opposite Parties, hereinafter to be called as OPs. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a LCD T.V. for a sum of Rs.19,000/- from OP-1 on 4.5.2012. It is further alleged in the complaint that after 8 months of the purchase of the LCD TV, the complainant made a complaint to the customer care center and an Engineer namely Sh. Dharmender Sharma attended the complaint and charged Rs.1,000/- but did not issue any receipt. It is further pleaded that in the month of August 2014, the said TV set started malfunctioning and the picture as well as the sound disappeared. On complaint one Sh. Varun Gupta technician/engineer attended the complaint and charged Rs.400/- from the complainant without replacing any parts. It is further alleged that in the month of May 2015 the same problem occurred again and on this occasion one Sh. Varun Gupta who attended the complaint informed the complainant to replace screen of TV set at a cost of Rs.21,000/-. The said engineer also charged Rs.450/- from the complainant. The complainant vide the present complaint has complained deficiency in service as well unfair trade practice. The complainant is claiming an award of Rs.24500/- on the ground of deficiency in service and as well as Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental pain and agony etc.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to both the O.Ps which despite service neither appeared nor filed any reply to the complaint, accordingly, both the OPs were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 6.1.2016.
3. Complainant in support of his claim filed an affidavit testifying the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has filed cashmemo to prove the purchase of LCD TV from the OP-1. The complainant has also filed copy of legal notice issued to the OPs. The complainant has also filed on record a copy of job sheet dated 11.8.2014 which shows that there was some sound problem which was resolved on chargeable basis for which a sum Rs.4,000/- was paid by the complainant and a receipt was given by the representative engineer of company. The complainant has also filed another job card dated 9.5.2015 which shows that the TV set was serviced and complaint was resolved for which a sum of Rs.400/- was charged as visiting charges by the engineer of the OP.
3. We have gone through the complaint as well as documents filed by the complainant. The LCD TV was purchased on 4.5.2012 and the first complaint was lodged with the OPs on 11.8.2014 which was beyond the period of warranty of one year. The complainant has been getting the LCD repaired on chargeable basis. The complainant has not filed any document to show any deficiency in service or in repairs of the LCD by the OPs. The charges for repairs also show that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the warranty period of LCD has expired. In absence of any evidence to prove deficiency in the services no liability can be fixed on the OPs due deficiency in service. The onus to prove the same was upon the complainant to which he has miserably failed. In view of above discussion the complaint is dismissed. Ordered Accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 25th day of May, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
