Case No. 75/2014   

      IN THE MATTER OF

              Abhishek Sharma S/O Shyam Sharma R/O House no-153/1,

              Awas Vikas Colony, Sasni Gate, Dist.- Aligarh

                                           V/s

1. Soni India Pvt Ltd, R/O A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial

Street, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through General

2. S. L. V. K. Electronic, Railway Road, Aligarh

              CORAM

              Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member

             PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.  The OPS be directed to replace the music system by the new one of the above model and on failure to replace the system, the amount Rs. 13100/ be paid with interest @ 2% per month from 04/04/2013.
2.  The OPS be directed to pay the amount Rs. 50000/ as compensation for physical, mental and economic sufferings.
3. Cost of the case be awarded.
4. Any other relief, which the commission deems fit be awarded.

2. Complainant has stated that the op-1 manufactured the electronic goods and supplies to the dealers. Op-2 sells the goods manufactured by the op-1. Complainant had purchased a music system from op-2 for Rs. 12100/ on 04/04/2013 through bill no-05/207. The warranty of the system was stated to be one year. The music system could not be operated smoothly and was found defective on 20/11/2013 complainant handed over the system to op-2 for service which was not retuned after service. OPS sold the defective system whereby complainant suffer physical and mental pains and economic monetary loss.
3. Ops stated in WS that complainant had purchased a Sony Home Theater or Music System Model DAV- TZ 215/ CE12 Serial no. 6141729 on 4.4.2013 after a detailed demonstration of its features functions and applications by the op no.2 and after satisfying himself with the condition of the Home Theater. After a period of eight month from the date of a purchase complainant complained to the OP no.1 on 27/11/2013 complaining of, set is not working the service engineer inspected home theater and found that DVD Drive was not working which was repaired. After repairing the service engineer called the complainant to collect the Home theater but he refused and demanded replacement. Complainant cannot make the claims outside the scope of the warranty .
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  Ops  have also filed their affidavit and papers  in support of his pleadings
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?
7. Complainant has stated that the Music System was handed over to the OP no.2 for repairs on 20.11.2013 but the music system was not retuned after service. On the other hand it is stated by the Ops that the Music system was repaired by the service engineer and called the complainant after repairing the system to collect it but complainant did not turnup. Complainant has supported his pleadings by the affidavits whose testimony is direct evidence on the issue whereas no direct evidence has been adduced by the Ops in support of their pleadings.  The service engineer is the only person who can depose about repairing of the system and giving information to the complainant to collect it by the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal by the ops engineer the version made by the complainant stands proved. It is held that the Music System was not repaired and handed over to the complainant by the Ops. Complainant is entitled either for replacement of the Music System of same model or to refund the price Rs.12100/ to the complainant with interest and is also entitled for compensation for harassment and cost of the litigation.
8.   The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant.
9.   We hereby direct the Ops either to replace the music system by the new of the same model or to refund jointly and severally its price Rs.12100/ with pendi lite and future interest at the 9% per annum. Ops are also directed to pay jointly and severally compensation Rs.5000/ and cost of the case Rs.5000/.
10. Op shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which OP shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11.  A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. 
12.  File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.