District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 251/2022

 Date of Institution:10.05.2022.

Date of Order:.14.07.2023.

Deepak Chatrath aged about 44 years Son of Sh. J.P. Chatrath R/o Flat No. G-605, BPTP Princess Park Sector-86, Faridabad (Haryana)

                                                          .....Complainant

1.       Vijay Sales-Faridabad, GB-19. Ground Floor, Crown Plaza Mathura Road,

29 KM Milestone, Sector 15A, Faridabad-121007 Through its Proprietor/Principal Officer

2.        M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.D-59, Site-4, Industrial Area, Kasna Road, Surajpur, Greater Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar (UP). Through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory

3.       M/s ETA General Pvt. Ltd.,Head office: ETA House, 3d Floor, 71/63 Opp. Loyala College, Sterling Road, Nuhgambakhan, Chennai-600034 through its M.D./Director/Principal Officer

Service also at-

Khasra No. 208 to 203, Village Budhpur, Vizapur Jain Temple, New Delhi-110001

                                                                              …Opposite parties

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Manoj Sharma,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 exparte vide order dated 21.022023.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 28.9.2022.

INDIRA BHADANA, MEMBER,

ORDER:   

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was willing to purchase Air Condition and Refrigerator for his personal use and on 07-03-2021, he went to the outlet of the opposite party No. 1 being big name in sale and supply of Electronic goods in District Faridabad and where, the O.P. No. 1 suggested the complainant to purchase AC of respondent No. 3 and Refrigerator of respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the complainant purchased a refrigerator (LG Shiny Steel 511L) of opposite party No. 2 and an Air Conditioner (O-General 1.5 ton) of  opposite party No. 3 from the Opposite party No. 1, then complainant proceeded towards the billing for making necessary payments of the said appliances and did all the necessary formalities. It is submitted that at the counter of opposite party No. 1, it was informed and assured to the complainant that the refrigerator would be delivered to the complainant very next day i.e. on 08.03.2021 and the Air Conditioner by next week.  The complainant received the refrigerator the very next day but was defective one. After contacting them and visiting several times, the opposite party No. 1 admitted its fault and supplied another refrigerator which was also defective  The complainant again visited the store of  opposite party No. 1 and received another refrigerator of  opposite party No.2's company which was also defective.  It was noteworthy to mention that, the opposite parties after fooling the complainant with defective products 3 times, asked the complainant to choose some other model of a higher price and capacity as there was no availability of the such product.  It was also to be noted that the air conditioner which the complainant received after a week was also defective. The complainant again visited the store and after few days got replaced with a new air conditioner.  It was pertinent to note that the complainant had to take leave from office several times to visit the store and complaint about defective products that the complainant also faced mental agony and harassment in the whole situation, The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                 pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

b)                refund the amount of Rs.13,000/- which the opposite party No.1 wrongly charged from the complainant.

c)                refund the complainant the travel charges of Rs.10,000/- which complainant had to bear for several visits.

d)                 pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice issued to opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 not received back in any form either served or unserved.  Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 & 3.  Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that  “Item Delivery confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 were proceed against ex-arte vide order dated 21.02.2023.

3.                Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of “Refusal”.  Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2022.

4.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

5                  We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

6.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Vijay Sales  with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . b) refund the amount of Rs.13,000/- which the opposite party No.1 wrongly charged from the complainant.

c) refund the complainant the travel charges of Rs.10,000/- which complainant had to bear for several visits. d)  pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case, the complainant  has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Deepak Chatrath, Ex.C1 to C4 – postal receipts,. Ex.C-5 – Track consignment, Ex.C-6  to 9– Tax invoices, Ex.C-10 – replacement challan, Ex.C-11  to 12– emails. Ex.C-13 – postal receipt, Ex.C-14 & 15 – track consignment, Ex.C-16 – postal receipt, Ex.C-17 – track  consignment.

7.                During the course of arguments, Shri Manoj Sharma, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I press only the litigation expenses and  mentally harassment charges.

 8.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties Nos1 to 3 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.

9.                Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 jointly & severally, are directed to  pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony  & harassment alongwith  Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  14.07.2023                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                             (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                  Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                        (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Commission, Faridabad.