Delhi

East Delhi

CC/753/2015

YOGESHWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       753 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 28/09/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                16/05/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         17/05/2018  In matter of

Mr Yogeshwar Chaudhary, adult   

R/o – 9/5180, Old Seelampur

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031 …………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Vijay Sales

A-18, Swasthya Vihar, 

Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092

 

2 Micromax Informatics Ltd. 

697, Micromax House,

Phase V, Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon 122001………………………..………….Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate …………………Rajesh Sharma  

Opponent 1……………………………………..Legal Needs Advocates

Opponent 2 …………………....………………Advo. Satya Vir Sharma

 

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur     Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased a Micromax LED TV vide model no. 50C4400FHD from OP1/ M/s Vijay Sales for a sum of Rs 39,990/-(Ex. CW1/1) on 14/10/2014. The said TV worked well up to July 2015 and thereafter hazy pictures started appearing, so contacted OP2 through customer care number 18605008899 and also send email to OP2 on 09/06/2015 (Ex CW1/3) for replacing the TV or remove the defect as TV was under warranty. The service engineer attended the said TV on 09/08/2015 and put remark as “Sensor Not Working” vide job sheet no. DEL 200415 (Ex CW1/2).

It was promised to get the said TV replaced by a new one if said part was not available. Despite of repeated lodging complaints, neither part was replaced nor new TV given, so complainant felt harassed so filed this complaint and claiming refund of cost of his LED TV cost Rs 39990/-with compensation sum of Rs 40,000/-for mental and physical harassment. Complainant also claimed Rs 10,000/- as cost of litigation. 

OP1/ M/s Vijay sales submitted their written statement and stated that complainant had purchased the said TV after full satisfaction and demonstration at their shop. It was installed by the service engineer and was working well. It was denied that OP1 ever assured complainant for services by OP1 rather it was assured that the manufacturer/OP2 would provide free services under warranty for one year from the date of purchase as per OP2’s warranty manual given with the said TV. Rest all allegations on OP1 were denied as wrong and incorrect. Hence, there was no deficiency in the service of selling the company’s product, so this complaint be dismissed.  

OP2/M/s Micromax submitted written statement and denied all the allegations against them. It was admitted that the said TV had one year warranty and were ready to provide services and even replacement of the product if found manufacturing defect. It was submitted that complainant had not submitted company’s terms and conditions with complaint. So without having terms and condition in warranty card for free services and concrete evidence to prove manufacturing defect, OP2 were not in a position to provide the services, so this complaint be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder and denied all replies filed by OP2 as wrong and all his facts were correct as stated in his complaint. Complainant did not submit rejoinder to OP1’s written statement as no relief was claimed against OP1. Complainant submitted evidences on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all evidences submitted on record were correct.

 

OP1/ M/s Vijay Sales submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Sonu Kumar Singh as authorised representative and affirmed on oath that facts submitted in their written statement were correct and new product was sold by them after proper demonstration and satisfaction. OP1 affirmed that the said TV had one year warranty with service manual.

OP2 also submitted evidences on affidavit through Mr Mohd Asad Shakeel working as Sr Manager Legal and as AR and reaffirmed on oath that all the evidences on record were correct and complainant had not submitted any proof of manufacturing defect. Both the parties submitted written arguments and taken on record.

 

Arguments were heard from both the parties and after file perused, order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the said TV developed problem of Hazy pictures during warranty tenure and was noted as “Sensor not working”. Even after assurance from OP2’s service engineer for replacing the sensor or replacement of TV, no step was taken by OP2 despite of reminding by complainant. This proves deficiency in services by OP2 though no deficiency in sale of TV was noted against OP1.     

 

We come to the conclusion that this complaint has merit and the same deserve to be allowed with the following order—

1. OP 2 is directed to replace the said TV by a new piece of same model within 30 days from the receiving of this order and if fails to replace then shall refund the cost of the TV in the stipulated time.
2. We also award compensation of Rs 10,000/-for mental and physical harassment due to deficiency in service by OP2 with litigation charges Rs 5000/-. 
3. If order is not complied in time essence, entire awarded amount shall carry interest of 9% from the date of job sheet (09/08/2015) by OP2 till realized.    

The copy of this order be sent to the parties under reguilation 18 of the Consumer Protection regulations 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room un regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur, Member                                                                                                       

 

                                                   Shri Sukhdev Singh, President