Haryana

Panchkula

CC/219/2017

SUNIDH KASHYAB - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIDEOCON D2H LTD AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

JYOTI RANI

27 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	219 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	27.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	27.09.2021

 

 

Sunidh Kashyap aged 56 years son of Sh. P.N.Kashyap, resident of House No.947, Sector-17, Panchkula. 

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Videocon D2H Limited Through its Managing Director/ Director/ President/Authorised Representative 14 KM Stone, Paithan Road, Village Chittgaon tq Paithandis Aurangabad Pin-431105

2.     Videocon D2h Limited through its Managing Director/Director/ Authorised Representative F-373, Phase 8B, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar Mohali-160071, Punjab.

        2^nd Address:-

        SCO No.80-82, 2^nd Floor, Sector-17-D, Chandigarh

 

3.     Next Retail India Limited, C-152, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director/ Director/Authorised Representative

        2^nd Address:-SCO No.355, Sector-9, Panchkula

Regional Office

SCO No.80-82, Second Floor, Sector-17-D, Chandigarh

 

Head Office

Videocon d2h Limited 1^st and Ground Floor, Tech Web Centre New Link Road, Oshiwara Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400102, Maharastra.

 

4.     Universal Digital Connect Limited through its Managing Director/ Director/Authorised Representative/Partner Plot No.248, Ist Floor Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana, India

5.     Videocon Industries Ltd. (Corporate Office), 221, 2^nd Floor, Fort House, Dr. D.N.Road, Fort Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director/Director/Director/Authorised Representative/Partner.

        Videocon Industries Ltd., SCO No.80/82, 2^ndFloor, Sector-17D, Chandigarh through its MD/Director/Partners/Authorized Representative etc.

        Videocon Industries Limited, 14KM Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Village Chittegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangabad-431105, Maharastra.   

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Jyoti Rani, Advocate for the complainant.      

Sh.Rohit Chandel, Advocate and Sh. Anil Kumar, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

OP No.3 already ex parte vide order dated 20.12.2017.

OP No.4 already ex parte vide order dated 10.05.2018.

OP No.5 already ex parte vide order dated 21.05.2019.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased the D2H LCD Model 3204 on dated 05.06.2010 from Next Retail India Ltd. SCO NO.355, Sector-9, Panchkula on 05.06.2010 and made the payment of said LCD and a certificate bearing no.18035 was issued by the dealer. As per the terms and conditions of the purchase after lapse of six years i.e. from 04.05.2010 to 05.05.2016, the OPs have to refund Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on maturity of this scheme. The complainant used the same for more than 6 years and maturity period from 04.05.2010 to 05.06.2016 and the scheme has become mature. The complainant several times made the written request sent to the OPs through registered post in May, 2016, on 21.04.2017 telephones also. Not only this the complainant also visited their office in SCO No.80-82, Sector-17D, Chandigarh and requested them to make the payment of the above said amount but the OPs intentionally and deliberately did not replied to the registered letters. Moreover, Opposite party linger the matter on one pretext to other. Thereafter, the complainant was served upon a legal notice dated 10.07.2017 to the OPs but the OPs have failed to comply with the legal notice. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no jurisdiction; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that Ops No.1 & 2 are same parties providing Direct TO Home services under the license issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India. It is further submitted that Ops No.1 & 2 do not carry any business related to products like Television or LCD. It is also stated that Videocon d2h Limited has not issued the Money Bank Certificate. Instead Money bank certificate is issued by the dealer i.e. OP No.3 and the scheme “Videocon Paisa Vasool Offer” and Money Bank Certificate was launched by Universal Digital Connect Limited, Gurgaon. Thus, the OPs No.1 & 2 have no concerned with cause of dispute in any manner. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                Upon notice, OP No.5 appeared through authorized representative and filed written statement stating that he has no role in this case and that the complainant has wrongly mentioned the address of OP No.5. The complainant by making a separate statement states that the address of OP No.5 i.e. M/s Videocon Pvt. Ltd. given as JC Kapoor, #26, Modern Complex, Ambala Road, Zirakpur(PB) Preet Colony, Zirakpur is/was hereby withdrawn as the same was taken from the google site and fresh address will be supplied. After that, notice was issued against the OP No.5 at its three addresses through registered post on 18.04.2019. Notice was issued to the OP No.5 at its three addresses through registered post vide No.RH380462342IN, RH380462268IN and RH380462308IN on 18.04.2019 which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.5; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op No.5, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 21.05.2019.

                Notices were issued to the OPs No.3 & 4 through registered post on 14.11.2017 to OP No.3 and registered post on 04.04.2018 to OP No.4, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.3 & 4; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.3 & 4, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 20.12.2017 and 10.05.2018 respectively.

3.             To prove his case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-25 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the evidence of the OPs No.1 & 2 was closed vide its order dated 28.02.2020.

 4.            We have heard learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs No.1 & 2. We have gone through the entire record available on record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs No.1 & 2, minutely and carefully.

5.             It is evident that the complainant purchased a LCD model no.3204 from OP No.3 vide bill dated 05.06.2010 amounting to Rs.26,200/-(Annexure C-1) under a scheme i.e. Videocon Paisa Vasool  offer-2010 floated by the  Ops assuring that the purchaser would be paid the amount after the expiry of  six years and 11 months from the date of purchase. The OP No.4 issued a money back certificate(Annexure C-2) under the said Videocon Paisa Vasool scheme promising to  pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant after the expiry of period of six months and 11 months from the date of purchase of LCD. After the expiry of 6 years and 11 months, the complainant approached the Ops for collecting the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,000/- and sent the letter dated 20.04.2017, dated 20.05.2017 followed by legal notice dated 17.07.2017 but the Ops neither released the assured sum of Rs.11,000/- in favour of the complainant nor responded to the aforesaid letters and legal notice. In the present complaint, it has been prayed that Ops be directed to make the payment of Rs.11,000/- alongwith interest as well as compensation of Rs.51,000 and Rs.22,000/- on account of mental agony, physical  harassment and litigations charges respectively.

6.             The Ops No.1 and 2 have contested the complaint stating that they did not carry any business relating to the product like television and LCD in respect of which the present complaint has been filed. It is contended that Ops No.1 & 2 are engaged in providing the direct to home(D2H) services like dish antina etc. It is further contended that the Ops No.1 & 2 have no connection in any manner with regard to the Videocon Paisa Vasool scheme as also the certificate (Annexure C-2). It is vehemently contended that the said certificate (Annexure C-2) does not bear the name, signature as well as seal of the OPs No.1 & 2.

7.             The OPs No.3, 4 & 5 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs No.3, 4 & 5 despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.             From the above, it is clear that except Ops No.1 & 2 none of the Ops preferred to contest the present complaint. Even the Ops No.1 & 2 have not adduced any evidence on record in support of their contentions that they have no concern with the product/or scheme i.e. Videocon Paisa Vasool scheme in question. It is well settled proposition of law that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

9.             The contentions of the Ops No.1 & 2 denying their liability in the matter stated that they have no concern with the product in question or Videocon Paisa Vasool scheme is not tenable on several counts as discussed hereinafter.

        First of all, we take up the Annexure C-3 for perusal and discussion vide which the assurance was given by the seller at the time of sale of the product. From its perusal, it has clearly been found that the product was manufactured and belongs to Ops No.1 & 2. The relevant part of the said (Annexure C-3) is reproduced for the sake of convenience and clarity as under:-

“Dear Customer,

Thank you very much for participating in VIDEOCON PAISA VASOOL, OFFER & selecting World’s First Satellite LCD MODEL NO.3204. Under the scheme you should collect a Money Bank Certificate from the Dealer of specific denomination as mentioned in the scheme, and we assure you that we shall pay the amount so mentioned in the certificate to you after expiry of the period of 6 years and 11 months from the date of your purchase & same is mentioned at the top of the Money Bank Certificate”.

Videocon Paisa Vasool Offer-2010 applicable on Videocon d2h selected products/models only.

Product Purchased D2h LCD MODEL No.3204 SET SR.NO._________ Cash Memo/Receipt no.____ Date 05.06.2010.

The contents of Annexure C-3 as reproduced above, find mention of D2h and thus, denial by the OPs No.1 & 2 has no force and substance.

        Secondly, the user guide book provided to the complainant at the time of purchase of the produced in question clearly find a mention of the word i.e. Videocon D2h on the front page of user guide book(Annexure C-25). Further, a perusal of Annexure C-24, which is computer generated copy from the Website of Wikipedia, reveals that Next Retail India Limited which is seller in the present case is a subsidiary of Videocon industries Limited who is OP No.5 in the present complaint. Further, a copy of printout, which is made available from google in the shape of Annexure C-23 clearly shows that Videocon D2h(OPs No.1 & 2) as well as Universal Digital Connect Limited(OP No.4) are subsidiaries of Videocon Industries (OP No.5). Lastly, the copy of memorandum of association of Videocon D2h Limited i.e. Ops No.1 & 2, which is available on record as Annexure C-22 negates and falsify  the version of Ops No.1 & 2 as it contains  in so many clauses that Videocon D2h Limited is engaged in the production and manufacturing of electronic and electrical computer items.

10.           In view of the above discussion, we find not even an iota of doubt with regard to the fact that the OPs No.1 to 4 are subsidiaries of OP No.5.  Therefore, all the OPs i.e. OPs No.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in the matter.

11.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

12.            The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 27.09.2021

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

           Member                        Member                       President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                        President