Haryana

Sonipat

CC/27/2015

INDER JEET S/O SURAJ MAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. SHARMA

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.27 of 2015

                             Instituted on:29.01.2015

                             Date of order:27.11.2015

 

Inder Jeet son Suraj Mal, resident Rajiv Colony, Manana road, Samalkha, Distt. Panipat.

 

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1. Vijay Electornics Mamu Bhanja Chowk, Sonepat, through its Prop.
2. Videocon Industries Ltd., SCO no.137, 2^nd Floor, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal through its authorized person.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. SK Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 in person.

           Sh. Mohit Sachdeva Adv. for Respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          D.V. Rathi, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one lED TV from the respondent no.1 vide bill no.1749 dated 11.8.2014. On 2.12.2014 there occurred a fault in the LED TV and the complainant lodged the complaint with the respondents for its repair.  But the respondents refused to repair the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they filed their separate reply.

         The respondent no.1 in his reply has submitted that the respondent no.2 company is liable under the warranty conditions and the respondent no.1 is not liable in any manner.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that service engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant on receiving the complaint and he found the panel of LED in broken/damaged condition due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. The estimate for repair of the same was given to the complainant.  But the complainant is adamant to get the LED replaced with new one. The respondent no.2 never refused to repair the LED of the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the LED from the respondent no.1 on 11.8.2014 with one year warranty.

         The complainant’s allegation is that the respondents even have failed to repair the LED when the complainant made the complaint regarding the fault developed in the LED. 

         The complainant has filed the present complaint on 29.1.2015 before this Forum i.e. within a period of about 5 months and at that time also, the LED of the complainant was within warranty period.  The respondents never made any efforts to redress the grievances of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, it is held that there is force in the present complaint and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to replace the LED TV of the complainant with new one.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.  The respondents are further directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi)                (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF     Member DCDRF              DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:27.11.2015