Haryana

Ambala

CC/444/2017

Nancy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                     FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  444 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  15.12.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  10.05.2018

 

 

Nancy wife of Sh. Vikas Grover, R/o H.No.1032-A, Sector-8, Housing Board, Ambala City.

     ……. Complainant.

 

1.       Videocon Industries Ltd. above ICICI Bank, Opposites OPS Vidya Mandir, Sector-13, Market Karnal, through its Managing Director.

2.       Videocon Service Centre, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

MS. ANAMAIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.                       

 

Present:       Sh. Vishal Mittal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ops proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 13.04.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a LED make Videocon Model VJE 42FH-KIA NET 110712110111900535 from Bhuvan Retail Plaza, # 1293-A/1, Block no.7, Manauli House, Prem Nagar, Ambala City who is authorized sale dealer of OP No.1 vide  bill no.2145 dated 27-10-2013 for a sum of Rs.52,500/- with three years warranty as special offer in the festival season but the said LED was out of order since May,2016. The complainant had approached the OP No.2 for repair  the LED  and they took the LED for repair to their service centre and also made to pay dish  recharge amounting to Rs.1500/- despite of that the said LED was out of services  and at the last they return the LED and told the complainant that “YEH THIK NAHI HO SAKTI” AUR AAP HUME Rs.27000/- DIJIYE HUM APKO NEW LED DENGE”. When the complainant enquired the reason they said the due to manufacturing defect the LED is out of service and new parts are also not available with the company. The complainant made complaint so many times to the Ops through telephonic calls, SMS and Emails since May 2016 but they failed to repair the same. The complainant purchased the LED after paid huge amount and interest and now she is unable to buy again LED in every 2-3 years as the Ops failed to repair its own product. The complainant is facing very great problem due to not working the LED and it shows that there is manufacturing defect in the LED of the complainant and the Ops failed to provide service and remedy to redress the grievances of the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Ops but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2018.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close her evidence. Ops already proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 13.04.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. It is proved on the file that  complainant had purchased a LED make Videocon Model VJE 42FH-KIA NET 11071211011900535 from Bhuvan Retail Plaza, #1293-A/1, Block No.7, Manauli House, Prem Nagar, Ambala City who is authorized sale dealer of OP No.1 vide Bill no.2145 dated 27.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.52,500/- with three year warranty (Annexure C-1) and  the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the defects of the LED could not be rectified by Ops within its warranty period and OP No.2 took the LED for repair to their service Centre and they have been charged the amount of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant in the month of May, 2016 for dish recharge despite of that the said LED was out of services and at the last they return back the LED without getting the necessary work done. In this way, the LED in question was went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was the duty of the OPs to get the same defect free of costs but they did not rectify the problem of LED in question. The complainant visited service centre/OP No.2 but the grievance has not been redressed by the OP No.2. Even then, the complainant sent the various E-mails as Annexure C-3 and Annexure-C-4 regarding problems occurred in the LED in question but the OPs have failed to rectify the problems developed in LED. In this way the complainant has been able to prove his case as the OPs have failed to provide service after selling the product in question which makes them deficient in service as per Consumer Protection Act. In the present case OPs No. 1 & 2 have also proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed against OPs No. 1 & 2 with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To repair/rectify the defects of LED in the question and to make the same in working condition free of costs.  

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                    Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :10.05.2018

                                               

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)           (D.N. ARORA)

            Member                               Member                                 President