BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.236/13.
Date of instt.: 28.10.2013.
Date of Decision: 22.12.2014.
Suraj Bhan son of Sh. Budh Ram, resident of Village & P.O. Geong, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Shree Services Centre, SCO No.353, Basement Mugal Canal, Karnal.
2. Sh. Sandeep Modgil Partner of the E-Zone Complete Computer Shoppe, SCF-11-B, Subhash Market, Opp. SBI Bank, Near Secretariat, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. M.R.Miglani, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 already exparte.
Op No.2 already abated.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a LCD 15.6” of H.C.L. company along with other articles from Op No.2 for a total sum of Rs.17,300/- vide bill No.16 dt. 30.04.2011 against the guarantee of one year. It is alleged that from the very beginning, the L.C.D. of the complainant developed problem and repair was done by Op No.2 but in the month of October, 2011 again problem developed in LCD of the complainant and informed the Op No.2. It is further alleged that the mechanic of HCL company told the complainant that it is having manufacturing problem. It is further alleged that the complainant made several requests to the Ops for replacement of said LDC but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear before this forum. Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 13.12.2013, whereas correct address of Op No.2 was not filed despite availing several opportunities, so, Op No.2 was abated vide order dt. 06.12.2014.
3. In support of his case, the complainant submitted his affidavit and documents.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a LCD 15.6” of H.C.L. company along with other articles from Op No.2 and paid Rs.4200/- to partner of firm for LCD and total paid Rs.17,300/- vide bill No.16 dt. 30.04.2011 against the guarantee of one year. From the very beginning, the L.C.D. of the complainant developed problem and repair was done by Op No.2 but in the month of October, 2011 again problem developed in LCD of the complainant and informed the Op No.2. The mechanic of HCL company told the complainant that it is having manufacturing problem. The complainant has also placed on file his affidavit, copy of bill, copy of customer services report and copy of legal notice etc. Whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte and despite availing several opportunities, the correct address of Op No.2 was not filed and Op No.2 was abated. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte qua Op No.1 and direct the Op No.1 to replace the defective LCD with the new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.16 dt. 30.04.2011 or to refund Rs.4200/- the cost of said LCD and further to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.22.12.2014.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
