Haryana

Panchkula

CC/241/2020

SNEHA PRABHA ARORA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIMTA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

DIXIT DHIMAN

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	241 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	11.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	30.10.2024

 

 

Sneha Prabha Arora, aged 77 years R/o H.No.185, Sector-16, Panchkula

 

                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

Simta Enterprises, Shop No.11, Hem Vihar, Baltana, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

Dr.Suman Singh, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Dixit Dhiman, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Yoginder Nagpal, Advocate for OP.                  

                       

                                        ORDER

 

(Satpal, President)

1.              The brief facts, as revealed from the averments made in the  present complaint, written statement and documentary evidence  placed on record, are, that  proprietor of the opposite party(hereinafter referred to as OP), who used to deal in the sale, purchase and service of water purifiers, geysers and other electronics and electrical products,  during the marketing survey, had approached the complainant in the month of February 2020 and provided a water geyser to her complainant of the company named “Aquabigguard” in lieu of payment of amount Rs.4700; after two days, the OP through its employee again visited the complainant’s house for installation of the geyser and after installing the same, informed the complainant that the OP was engaged in the sale of electronics and electrical goods at very reasonable price. It is averred that the OP through its proprietor on enquiry made by the complainant informed her that it(OP) would provide LED TV at reasonable rates and on the assurance of the OP, the complainant expressed her desire to purchase a Samsung LED TV. It is averred that the OP had provided the LED screen on 21.03.2020 of the company i.e. “Aquabigguard” in lieu of Rs.26,000/ in place of Samsung LED TV screen, which was asked by the complainant from the OP. It is averred that the complainant was assured that the LED TV of “Aquabigguard” would be exchanged by the LED TV of Samsung company. On 21.03.2020, the complainant paid the part payment of Rs.10,000/- qua the price of the LED TV as the complainant was not having enough money with her at that time. On 23.03.2020, the lockdown was imposed and thus, no communication could be made with the OP. On 27.04.2020, the proprietor of OP visited the complainant’s house and received the payment of Rs.1,000/- and assured her about the replacement of the LED TV with Samsung TV after the lockdown period was over. It is stated that the OP visited the complainant’s house in the month of May, 2020 and received the payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash, assuring her about the change of her LED TV. On 08.06.2020, the OP again visited  the complainant’s house and received the payment of Rs.5,000/- vide cheque no.123255 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Sector-8, Chandigarh and the same was got enchased on 08.06.2020 and thus, the OP had received the payment of Rs.26,000/- in total qua the full and final payment of the Samsung LED TV. The OP had also provided the pendrive of Bhagati Song. On 15.06.2020, the complainant made a telephonic call to the OP on the mobile no.7973033983 but the Op flatly refused to change the LED TV with Samsung LED TV. It is stated that the OP did not change the LED with Samsung TV despite the several visits made by the complainant to OP. Finally, a legal notice was sent to OP through Sh. Dixit Dhiman, Advocate on 29.06.2020 but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP appeared through its counsel and filed the reply by raising preliminary objections, wherein it is denied that the LED TV was sold to the complainant by charging a sum of Rs. 26,000/-. It is submitted that the “Aquabigguard” company LED was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs.16,000/-. It is denied that the complainant was assured about the change of LED TV. It is submitted that the OP had sold the LED TV of the same company and brand, which was chosen by the complainant and the same was perfect in running condition. It is submitted that no commitment was ever made by the OP to change the LED TV as LED TV was having no problem in it. It is submitted that the complainant being 72 years is not able to understand the function of the LED TV as explained to her during installation. It is submitted that there is no exchange policy of the LED TV unless the same has inherent defect. It is submitted that the complainant herself had chosen the “Aquabigguard” LED TV brand and the OP never assured her about the sale of Samsung LED TV as the OP was not a dealer of Samsung LED TV. It is submitted that the total consideration of the LED TVas sold to the complainant was Rs.16,000/- and not Rs.26,000/- as alleged by the complainant and thus, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the OP did not submit its evidence in shape of affidavit along with documents etc. despite availing several opportunities; accordingly, its evidence was closed by the Commission on 14.06.2023.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP and gone through the entire record available on the file, carefully and minutely.

5.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit of the complainant i.e. Annexure C-A and contended that the complainant aged 76 years old was duped by the OP misrepresenting that the LED TV as sold to her on 21.03.2020 would be replaced with the Samsung LED TV. It was argued that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.26,000/- in lieu of the price of the Samsung LED TV as assured to her by the OP. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the OP had sold the LED of “Aquabigguard” company in place of Samsung LED TV, in lieu of consideration of Rs.26,000/- by adopting unfair trade practice and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP refuted the contentions of the complainant qua the sale of LED TV of “Aquabigguard” company in place of Samsung LED TV and contended that the LED TV of “Aquabigguard” company was sold to the complainant vide invoice dated 21.03.2020 amounting to Rs.10,000/-. It was argued that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.16,000/- only in lieu of purchase of “Aquabigguard” LED TV in question.  Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the OP was neither dealer of Samsung TV nor the complainant was assured about the replacement of the “Aquabigguard” LED TV with Samsung LED TV and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.             Evidently, One LED TV of “Aquabigguard”, having one year warranty, was sold by the OP to the complainant vide bill no.654 dated 21.03.2020 i.e. Annexure C-2 amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

8.             The main grievance of the complainant is that she was assured the delivery of Samsung LED TV in place of LED TV of ““Aquabigguard” in lieu of payment of Rs.26000/- by her to the OP but we find no documentary evidence on record in support of the contention of the complainant that any such promise or assurance as alleged was given by the OP. Further, there is no documentary evidence on record, which shows that the OP was authorized dealer for the sale of Samsung manufactured products. However, we have found that the LED TV of “Aquabigguard”, having on year warranty, was sold by OP to the complainant vide bill no.654 dated 21.03.2020 i.e. Annexure C-2 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- whereas the OP had received the payment of Rs.16,000/- in lieu of the price of LED TV of “Aquabigguard” company and thus, the OP had obtained  the amount of Rs.6000/- in excess.  On query raised by the Commission qua the receipt of excess amount of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant, the OP failed to furnish any justification, much less plausible, adequate and proper. In our considered opinion, the OP had received the payment of Rs. 6,000/- in excess of the price of LED TV as shown in  bill dated 21.03.2020 (Annexure C-2) and thus, it has indulged into unfair trade practice, for which, it is liable to compensate the complainant.                  

9.             In relief, the complainant has claimed the refund of amount of Rs.26,000/- along with interest or the replacement of the LED TV of “Aquabigguard” with Samsung LED TV. Further, a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs.20,000/- have been claimed on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges. Further, imposition of punitive charges amounting to Rs.10,000/- on account of indulgence by the OPs into unfair trade practice has been prayed.

10.            Regarding the payment qua the price of the LED TV, the complainant has alleged that she had made the payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash to the OP and in this regard, has relied upon Annexure C-7.

11.            We have perused the receipt i.e. Annexure C-7 and find that one person, namely, Sh.Pyara Singh allegedly has paid the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on 22.05.2020 in cash for the purchase of LED but there is no evidence on record, which shows that the payment of Rs.10,000/- was ever paid to the OP; thus, the contention of the complainant that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash to the OP in addition to the payment of Rs.16,000/- is not tenable. As such the complainant is found entitled to the refund of Rs.16,000/-only from the complainant.  

12.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.16,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum (simple interest) w.e.f the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization subject to the return of LED TV in question by the complainant to the OP.

It is made clear that the OP through its authorized representative shall collect the LED TV in question against proper receipt from the house of the complainant and on the arrival of the authorized representative of OP at the residence of the complainant, she will return the LED TV in question

2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

 

 13.           The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:30.10.2024

 

 

 

        Dr. Suman Singh                   Dr.Sushma Garg                Satpal

                        Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    Satpal

  President