Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1195/2015

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sharp Bussiness Systems (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.P.Sharma

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                           

                                                Complaint No.  1195

                                                Instituted on:    01.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       21.07.2016

 

Manoj Kumar aged about 45 year son of Shri Amrit Lal Dakhledar, C/o Sangam Gift House, resident of Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Sharp Business Systems (India) Limited, Plot No.A9, 3^rd Floor, BITS Tower, Sector 125, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh).

2.             Sharp Business Systems (India) Limited, SCO 267, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh 160 030 through its Regional officer.

3.             M/s. Ahuja Electronics, Gaushalla Chowk, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Navit Puri, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Manoj Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one LED Sharp 32’  from OP number 3  on 13.12.2013 for Rs.28,500/- vide invoice number 396 dated 13.12.2013 with five years warranty of the LED against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that in the month of November, 2014 there was problem of picture tube in the screen of the LED, as such he informed OP number 3 about the problems and handed over the LED to OP number 3 at his shop.  It is further averred that after seeing the defect the OP number 3 told the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect in the LED, as such, the same is required to be sent to the Ops number 1 and 2 for replacement, but the grievance of the complainant is that the LED in question has not been returned to the complainant by OP number 3 despite his best efforts. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the sharp company LED 32’ with a new one or in the alternative to refund him the purchase price of the LED along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up that the complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and is an abuse of process of law and the allegations levelled in the complaint are without any basis and the same have been denied in toto.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the Led in question from the OP number 3. It has been stated that the LED in question was having three years manufacturer warranty in case of any defect. It has been admitted that the in the month of October, 2014 the complainant approached OP number 3 and complained about the defects in the LED and the OP number 3 advised the complainant to call at toll free number and as such the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP number 1 and 2.  It has been denied that the complainant handed over the LED to the OP number 3 at any stage. The other allegations levelled in the complaint are also denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of brochure and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3  has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the LED in question for Rs.28,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the LED in question and availed the services of the OP number 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.

 

7.             After carefully perusal of the case file, we find that in the present case, the complainant has alleged that in the month of November, 2014 the LED in question created display problem  and as such, he approached OP number 3 to get the problem of the LED rectified and further handed over the same to the OP number 3, who forwarded the same to OPs number 1 and 2 for further repairs, but the same was not returned to the complainant despite his best efforts.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 3 is that the complainant never handed over the LED to the OP number 3 and has further stated that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint.  As such, OP number 3 has further contended that since the complainant never handed over the LED to OP number 3, the question of its return to the complainant does not arise at all.  To support such a contention, the OP number 3 has also produced his sworn affidavit Ex.OP3/1 of Shri Ramesh Kumar, wherein it has been clearly stated that “the complainant had not handed over the LED to deponent as alleged by him in the complaint”.  Further it is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence on record or receipt of the OP number 3 showing that the LED in question was handed over to OP number 3, as such, we are unable to go with the contention of the complainant that the LED in question was handed over to the OP number 3 by the complainant at any stage. Further there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce on record any job order sheet/receipt of the Led in question.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that he ever handed over the LED in question to the OP number 3 and even the complainant has not mentioned on what date the LED in question was handed over to the OP number 3.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 21, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member