Haryana

Karnal

CC/257/2015

Ashwani Kumar S/o Ramesh Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Industries Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.R. Bhandari

12 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.257 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.:19.10.2015

                                                               Date of decision 12.5.2016

 

Ashwani Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Chand, resident of Anaj Mandi, opposite Civil Hospital, Nissing, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Videocon Industries Ltd., Branch Office at S.C.O. 137, IInd floor, Sector-13 Market, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Service Manager, Mr. Rajesh Mehla.

2. M/s Shri Ganesh Electronics, Authorized Dealer (M/s Videocon Industries Ltd.) Main Road, Nissing District Karnal through its proprietor/partner.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani……Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri M.R. Bhandari Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a Videocon LCD Model no.VAQ32HH-ZMTI from the opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.18,500/-, vide bill no.309 dated 23.4.2015  with the warranty of one year. The said LCD started giving problem from the date of its purchase. He lodged  complaint no.0208 on 1.6.2015 with the opposite party no.1. The service engineer of opposite party no.1 visited his premises and checked the defective LCD. Service Engineer told him that there was a problem in the panel and he changed the Panel of the LCD on 4.6.2015. On 16.6.2015, the LCD became dead and he again lodged a complaint no.0156 with the opposite parties. Service Engineer visited his premises and checked the LCD and assured that LCD would be replaced by the company. Thereafter, on 14.7.2015 another LCD was provided to him of model no.LCDTVVAD32HH-YEA, which was not in a sealed box, he objected at the time of receipt of the said LCD, but service engineer assured that the same was checked, therefore, the seals were not there. Due to his bad luck, the said LCD also became dead on 5.9.2015 and he lodged complaint no.0018 with the opposite party no.1. On the complaint, service engineer visited his premises and checked the LCD and told that the defect in the LCD was a manufacturing defect and could not be rectified and further told that the said LCD was not a brand new and the same  was already repaired LCD.  Then, he contacted the opposite party no.2, who forwarded the matter to opposite party no.1. Official of the opposite party no.1 assured for redressal of his grievance, but no action was taken by the opposite parties. In this way, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which he faced mental harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this forum and that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the opposite party no.1 is a renowned company in Electronics Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronics products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronics Products is highly sophisticated, therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  It has been admitted that the complainant lodged complaint no.0018 on 5.9.2015. It has further been pleaded that the complainant himself has put forward a concocted story in order to get his LCD replaced with a new one and to grab money from the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and C2 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Joginder Kaushik Ex.OP1/A has only been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the complainant had purchased one LCD on 23.4.2015 for an amount of Rs.18500/-, vide bill no.309, the copy of which is Ex.C1. Complainant has alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the LCD due to which the same became dead and  was replaced by the opposite parties, as is evident from Ex.C2. The replaced LCD also became dead due to manufacturing defect and the service engineer could not remove the defect. On the other hand, the opposite parties have denied about any manufacturing defect in the LCD. However, it has been admitted that the complainant had made complaint regarding LCD.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the LCD purchased by the complainant was having some manufacturing defect, therefore,  the same was replaced with another LCD. As per the case of the complainant the replaced LCD was not in a sealed packet and the same also became dead regarding which complaint no.0018 was made by him on 15.9.2015. The document Ex.C2 shows that the replaced LCD was delivered to the complainant on 10.7.2015 and the same became dead within two months and the complainant had to make complaint on 15.9.2015. The opposite parties have also admitted the factum of lodging such complaint by the complainant. In support of his allegation, the complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. The opposite parties have led no evidence to prove that after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the defect in the LCD was removed. Mere pleadings of the opposite parties that there was no defect in the LCD cannot take the place of proof. Affidavit of Joginder Kaushik Ex.OP1/A is just repetition of the stand taken in the written statement. Therefore, in view of such facts and circumstances, there is no cogent evidence of the opposite parties to rebut the evidence of the complainant. From these facts and circumstances, it is established that the LCD of the complainant is defective and the defect has not been cured by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get replaced the said LCD with a new one of the same value or get refund of the price of the LCD paid by him.

 9.               In view of the foregoing circumstances, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the LCD with new one of the same value or to make payment of the price thereof to the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                             (Veena Rani)      (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member