Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1131/2013

MEENA RANJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

VANSH ELE. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 1131/13

MEENA RANJAN

D/O  Sh. GIRIVAR SINGH

R/O 12/290, KALYAN PURI

DELHI           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ….Complainant

 

Vs

 

 

1. M/S VANSH ELECTRONICS

D-10, LAXMI NAGAR,

MAIN VIKAS MARG, DELHI-110092

 

2. G.K. ENTERPRISES (REPAIRING CENTRE)

69-A, ARUNA PARK,

LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110092

 

3. PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD.

5-AC BUILDING ANNEXE VI FLOOR

58 MOUNT ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI-600032

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                        ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 27.12.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 02.12.2016

Judgment Passed on: 22.12.2016

 

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Ms. Veena Ranjan against            M/S Vansh Electronics, Retailer (OP-1), G.K. Enterprises, Service Centre (OP-2), and Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, the Manufacturer (OP-3), alleging deficiency in service and hence, praying for replacement of the defective LCD set, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and agony.

2. The facts in brief of the complaint are that on 30/12/2012, the complainant purchased Panasonic LCD set for Rs.11,000/- vide Invoice No.7693, Book ND No. 136 from OP-1. In the month of February, the said LCD was not working properly for which complaint No.1310049908 was registered with OP-3 and executive from OP-2 visited the complainant, but failed to remove the problem. Even after 8 to 10 days, the Executive/Engineer could not remove the defects. Despite several complaints the grievance of the complainant was not addressed. Again complaint No. 1310098695 was registered with OP-3 in the month of April 2013 which was not addressed by OP-3 despite letters dated 07/11/2013 and 27/11/2013. The issues pertaining to the LCD were not removed, hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint. Retail invoice dated 30/12/2012, issued by OP-1 certificate of warranty. Letters dated 07/11/2013 are annexed with the complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was served upon OPs. During the proceedings OP-2 was deleted from the array of parties. No reply was filed by the OP-1, thus, they were proceeded Ex-parte.

4. OP-3 filed their written version wherein they took the plea that OP-2 was not authorized repairing centre & complaint No. 1310049908 was registered in the month of October and not in February 2013 as alleged by the complainant. Similarly complaint No. 1310098695 was received by OP-3 in the month of October 2013 and not April 2013. It was further submitted that one of the part of LCD- A-Board was to be replaced and two weeks’ time was sought for its arrangement. It was further submitted that the complainant was offered additional warranty of six months on the said LCD which was accepted by the complainant but the complainant filed the present complaint. In their written statement OP-3 has stated that there was no defect in the said LCD and OP was willing to replace the part and also offered the extended warranty of six months to the complainant. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied.

5. Thereafter rejoinder to the written statement was filed by OP-3, where the contents of the written statement were denied and that of the complaint were reiterated. A letter dated 11/03/2014 by the OP-3 stated that the said LCD was not repaired by OP-3.

6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by Ms. Meena Ranjan, the complainant herself who deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and relied upon             Ex CW1/1 which is the invoice, warranty card Ex CW1/2, Ex CW1/3 & CW1/4 are the letters dated 07/11/2013 & 27/11/2013, copy of the Speed Post Ex CW1/5 & CW1/6. Affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar was filed on behalf of OP-3 wherein contents of the written statement were reiterated.

7. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record. It is admitted that there was a problem with the LCD of the complainant. It is also admitted by OP-3 that they had offered to the complainant the exchange of A-Board and an extended warranty of six months on their LCD. OP-3 has neither filed any documents regarding the compliant made by the complainant with respect to complaint No. 131004998 and 1310098695. As the said LCD was still under warranty, the complainant is entitled to get it repaired free of cost. Hence, we direct OP-3 to repair the LCD within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order along with extended warranty of one year from the date when the repaired LCD is handed over to the complainant. We also award compensation of Rs.2,500/- to be paid to the complainant by OP-3 within 30 days from the receipt of the order. If the order is not complied within the stipulated period, the complainant would be entitled to the cost of mobile and compensation of Rs.2,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a.

            Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 (Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)               

       MEMBER                                                                                      MEMBER              

 

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT