Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 14.
Instituted on : 06.01.2020.
Decided on : 12.10.2020.
Birender Singh s/o Sh. Rajbir Singh ate 44 years, r/o House No.997/21, Prem Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sony Centre, Progadgets India, Shop No.2, Daulta Tower, Opp. HDFC Bank, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Sai Security Systems, Sony Authorized Service Centre, Near Mahabir Guest House, Green Road, Rohtak-124001, Haryana..
- Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-18 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties already exparte vide order dated 28.02.2020.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased an LED Sony KD-49X8500F/B(07 L.E.D TV) on dated 26.04.2019 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.92600/-. The brother of the complainant also purchased the same model of L.E.D from the opposite party and there is no defect in the same till date. There is a spot in the L.E.D of the complainant from the very beginning, which disrupts the clarification of pictures and due to which, there is difficulty in viewing the programmes. Complainant complained about the same through e-mail to the opposite party No.3 and also sent the photographs of alleged L.E.D. From 26.07.2019 to till date, complainant had complained 5 times to the opposite party no.3 and it was assured by the opposite party that the problem will be resolved but till date no action has been taken by the opposite party no.3. Complainant also sent emails dated 18.12.2019 and 02.01.2020 to the opposite party No.3 but no reply has been received till date. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that the alleged L.E.D. be replaced with new one or the amount of Rs.92600/- be refunded alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 & 2 received back duly served and notice sent to opposite party No.3 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3 and as such opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.02.2020 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence on dated 09.10.2020.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased an L.E.D. on dated 26.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.92600/- from the opposite party No.1. As per e-mail Ex.C2 dated 26.07.2019, the complainant has made a complaint to the opposite party company that from the very beginning, a dot was displaying on the screen which is also visible from the photocopy of screenshots attached with this email. Complainant also sent emails Ex.C4, Ex.C6 to ExC8 to the opposite party no.3 to replace the L.E.D. in question as the fault in the unit was not-repairable but despite his repeated requests, his grievance could not be resolved by the opposite parties. On the other hand, it is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service of notice. As such, it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding selling the defective product stands proved. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.3 being the manufacturer of the product is liable to replace the product.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.3 is directed to replace the L.E.D. in question of the complainant amounting to Rs.92600/- with new one of same price and also to pay a sum of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the L.E.D. in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement of L.E.D. by the opposite party no.3.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.10.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
