Punjab

Sangrur

CC/288/2023

Gian Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Triple Ace Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gurpreet Singh Gippy

22 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 288

 Instituted on:   27.09.2023

                                                                         Decided on:     22.11.2024

Gian Chand aged 55 years son of Chuhar Mal, resident of Khai Basti, Ward No.04, Lehra Gaga, Sangrur, Punjab 148031.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Triple Ace Enterprises, Jakhal Road, Lehragaga, Sangrur through its authorized signatory.

2.     Nokia India Private Limited, Flat No.1213, 12^th Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Central Delhi DL 110001 through its authorized signatory.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : Shri G.S.Gippy, Adv.              

For OP No.1                        : Shri Arun Mittal, Adv.

For OP No.2                        : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill                   :President

Sarita Garg                                                :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh                                      :Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a LED of Nokia from OP number 1  vide invoice number 163/2023-24 dated 14.05.2023, which was having one year warranty, but no warranty card was provided by the OPs. Further case of complainant is that when he started to use the said LED he found that the LED TV was creating problems in display and was not working properly, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 and brought the problem in his knowledge. Further case of complainant is that thereafter he lodged the complaint with the OPs in the first week of July, 2023, but of no avail. Thereafter  complainant received a message that one Sukhdeep Singh will visit and check the LED TV of the complainant, however, immediately on the very next day another message was received that the appointment has been rescheduled. Thereafter on 9.9.2023 official of the OP visited the house of the complainant and checked the LED TV and stated that there is manufacturing defect and the same will be replaced with a new one in a few days, but despite best efforts of the complainant, the LED TV was not replaced with a new one.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the LED TV with a new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and further to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, pain and harassment and further an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite parties number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on 20.11.2023.

3.             The learned counsel for the OP number 1 filed an application seeking permission to join the proceedings on 14.05.2024. OP number 1 was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage on 08.07.2024 without giving opportunity to file the written reply and to tender any evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of invoice, Ex.C-3 copy of backside of TV containing model number, Ex.C-4 copy of screen shots and closed evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a Nokia 164 CM 65 Inch U HD 4K LED for Rs.40,000/- on 14.05.2023 from OP number 1 as is evident from the copy of the tax invoice Ex.C-2, which was having one year warranty.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that from the very beginning the LED TV in question was not working properly and as such complainant lodged the complaint with the OPs and thereafter the complainant received a text message Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, as such the agent of the OPs visited the house of complainant and told that the LED TV is suffering from the manufacturing defect and requires to be replaced with a new one. We have also perused the SMS messages Ex.C-4, which show that one  Sukhdeep Singh was appointed to visit the complainant to check the LED TV in question, but he never visited the house of the complainant to check the LED TV and again and again rescheduled the appointment, as such we are of the considered  opinion that the OPs are not only deficient in service but have indulged in unfair trade practice by even not visiting the house of the complainant to check the LED TV in question. Though the complainant requested the Ops to replace the defective LED TV with a new one, but the OPs refused to do so. The OPs  chose to remain exparte and whole of the evidence is unrebutted.  It is no doubt true that the LED TV developed defects during the warranty period which was never removed. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the LED TV in question was not repaired during the warranty period. As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   In the circumstances, we find that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to replace the LED TV in question with a new one.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to replace the defective LED TV with a new one or to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- being the cost of defective LED TV alongwith interest @ 7% per annum  from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.09.2023 till realization. We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall return the old defective LED TV at the time of getting the replacement/refund of the amount as the case may be.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        November 22, 2024.