Haryana

Kurukshetra

277/2018

Nariender Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tanuj Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sangram Singh

01 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.277 of 2018

Date of instt.:13.12.2018. 

                                                                         Date of Decision: 01.04.2021.

 

Narinder Kaur wife of Shri Gurmukh Singh resident of house no.1239, BMC, Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …….Complainant.                                                  Versus

1.Tanuj  Electronics, Gita School Market, Railway Road, Kurukshetra 136-118 through its Proprietor.

2. Videocon Corporate Office/Head Office, Fort House 2^nd Floor, 221, Dr.DN Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 through its Managing Director.

 

        ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                 

Present:     Shri Harpreet Singh, Advocate for the complainant.         

OP No.1 and 2 ex parte.  

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Narinder Kaur against  Tanuj Electronics and another, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one Videocon LED 50”  50FH17x AJ for a total sum of Rs.45,000/- including GST from OP n o.1. The said LED was manufactured by OP No.2.   It is averred that at the time of purchase of LED, OP No.1 being dealer and  on behalf of OP No.2 assured that LED is of best standard superior quality product.  Two years  warranty was also given and it was also assured that in case of any defect, LED  would be  got  replaced from OP No.2.. It is further averred that just after 4/5 months of purchase , LED  became faulty and it’s 50%  displace got damaged and became totally blacky. The complainant  made complaints to OPs time and again and mechanic was deputed by OPs who  repaired the same but after use of the  repaired LED, the same fault  developed again  time and again and that fault is a manufacturing defect in the LED and same is not repairable, rather it requires replacement.   The complainant requested the OPs to replace the LED in question but the OPs kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other even after service of legal notice. Thus, it is alleged that such act on the part of the OPs is deficiency in services and the complainant has been made to harassment and mental agony because he had purchased the LED in question for family enjoyment. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed for replacement of the LED in question alongwith compensation for the mental harassment  caused to him together litigation expenses.

 

3.             Summons issued to OPs were duly served upon but they failed to  appear and contest the present complaint. Therefore, OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 22.01.2019 and 12.03.2020 respectively.

 

4.             The complainant in support of her case has filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and Mark “A” and closed her evidence.

 

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant had purchased one Videocon LED 50”  50FH17x AJ for a total sum of Rs.45,000/- including GST from OP n o.1. The said LED was manufactured by OP No.2.   It is  argued  that at the time of purchase of LED, OP No.1 being dealer and  on behalf of OP No.2 assured that LED is of best standard superior quality product.  Two years  warranty was also given and it was also assured that in case of any defect, LED  would be  got  replaced from OP No.2. It is further  argued  that just after 4/5 months of purchase , LED  became faulty and it’s 50%  display got damaged and became totally blacky. The complainant  made complaints to OPs time and again and mechanic was deputed by OPs who  repaired the same but after use of the  repaired LED, the same fault  developed again  time and again and that fault is a manufacturing defect in the LED and same is not repairable, rather it requires replacement.   The complainant requested the OPs to replace the LED in question but the OPs kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other even after service of legal notice and as such there is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs.

 

                Thus, from the version of the complainant, it is established that LED purchased for  Rs.45,000/- by the complainant from OP No.1 (as per bill Ex.C-4) and the said LED was manufactured by OP No.1, became faulty just after 4/5 months of its purchase. On the complaints made by the complainant, OPs failed to remove the defect of the LED. This version of the complainant completely goes unrebutted and unchallenged. This version of the complainant is duly supported by her affidavit. On the other hand, OPs have failed to appear to contest the complaint, therefore, OPs were proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, it is established that the LED purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 is defective one and the OPs failed to remove its defect despite repeated requests. From the document Mark “A” placed on the file it is clear that Area Service Manager has written that “ Set already approved for replacement, so please support settle the customer” but despite that OPs have failed to replace the LED of the complainant. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the  OPs is proved and the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost of the LED i.e. 45000/- together with compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to her and the litigation  expenses.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the sum of Rs.45,000/- i.e. cost of the LED to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to her and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copies of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.45000/- shall carry interest  @ 6%  per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.12.2018 till its actual realization. Certified copies of this order be prepared and supplied to the parties concerned. The file be indexed and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:01.04.2021                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.