Delhi

North East

CC/11/2015

Mukaddis Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NE

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 11/15

 

In the matter of:

Mukaddis Ali

S/o Muda Bir Ali

R/o House No. 381

B Block, Gali No. 16, Shriram Colony

Rajiv Nagar, Khajoori Dayalpur,

Delhi-110094.                                                                     Complainant                                       

         

Versus

 

1. The Proprietor

M/s Arora Electronics

B-71, Main Market, Bhajanpura

Delhi-110053.

2. The Director

MIRC Electronics Limited(ONIDA)

A-19,B-1, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Mathura Road, Badarpur,

New Delhi-110044.                                        Opposite Parties

 

                                                                     

 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.01.2015

                                                 DATE OF DECISION      :  27.02.2016

 

Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Manju Bala Sharma, Member :-

Order

 

1. The case of the complainant is that on 3.02.2014 he purchased an ONIDA 61 cm LED TV having Model No. LEO24NH 24 NEO SERIES for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from OP1 with one year warranty. On 25.11.2014 the said TV developed certain problem of power supply and on 26.11.2014 a complaint in this regard was made to OP1 for its repair or replacement as the TV was under warranty period. OP did not repair/replace the TV instead stated that the same was the responsibility of OP2 who is the manufacturer. It is further stated that OP1 gave three Numbers of customer care dealing with the complaints of ONIDA TV but despite several calls no one came to repair the TV. On 1.12.2014 the complainant again contacted OP1 and after lots of persuasions got registered a complaint vide complaint NO. 14120686380026. The engineer of OP2 visited the complainant and on checking the TV he stated that the TV is required to be replaced as the defect is not repairable and it will be replaced within 2-3 days but unfortunately the TV set was neither repaired nor replaced. It is further stated that despite repeated requests to either replace the TV set or refund the cost, the OPs paid no heed to the request of the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs complainant has prayed to direct the OPs to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 3.12.2014; Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. OPs were served with notice but nobody appeared on their behalf and filed any reply, hence vide order dated  9.3.2015 both the OPs were proceeded against Ex-parte.
3. Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the complainant.
4. Heard and perused the record.         
5. The complainant has filed on record copy of the bill of Rs. 15,000/- alongwith warranty. In the terms and conditions of warranty it is clearly stated that the ONIDA LED TV is guaranteed against manufacturing components for a period of one year from the date of purchase and that in the event of any manufacturing defect during the warranty period it will be replaced/repaired by the company free of cost. As per the warranty clause the TV is guaranteed against manufacturing components for a period of one year from the date of purchase. In the instant case the TV was purchased on 3.02.2014 and it got defective on 25.11.2014 which means that the TV was within its warranty period and it was the responsibility of the OPs to get it repaired/replaced. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that the engineer stated that the TV cannot be repaired it has to be replaced only and will be replaced in 2-3 days. Perusal of the warranty clearly establishes that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to make good the loss of the complainant.  
6. Thus the complainant has established his case while the OPs chose not to appear and controvert the allegations levelled against them. Hence complainant’s case is deemed to be proved.
7. On the basis of the above findings holding OPs guilty for deficiency in service and mental harassment jointly and severally considering that complainant has used the TV for about 9 months free from all defects, we allow the refund of the cost of the TV to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the harassment and suffering of complainant. We also award Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
8. This order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which an interest @ of 12% p.a. will be charged on Rs. 10,000/- against the awarded cost of TV from the date of purchase till realisation.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. File be consigned to record room.
10. Announced on: - 27.02.2016

 

 

  

  (N.K.Sharma)      (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)     (Manju Bala Sharma)

 President                 Member                          Memebr