BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                                        Complaint Case no.251 of  2018     

                                                                       Date of Institution:          12.10.2018

                                                                        Date of Decision:     4.1.2019

Pawan Kumar son of Shri Hoshiar Singh, resident of 1338, Patel Basti, Ward No.13, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

Vishal Electronics, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Partner.

                              ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Naresh Kalra, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite party exparte.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased one Samsung LED Model No.32D6000 from opposite party for a sum of Rs.24,500/- vide bill No.9472 dated 9.7.2015 with guarantee of two years. That in the month of June, 2018, the above said LED stopped its working and complainant informed Samsung care centre for its repair. On 23.6.2018, service engineer visited his house and after checking the same reported that this LED is not of Samsung company brand rather it is a cheap branded LED. This fact was confirmed by Samsung Care Centre, Sirsa on the same day. That in this manner, the op has cheated the complainant by supplying inferior quality of LED to the complainant instead of Samsung. The complainant approached and requested the op to replace the above said LED with original piece of Samsung company because he has paid huge amount in the name of above company, but to no effect and op misbehaved with the complainant and refused to replace the LED and also refused to refund the price of LED. That the act and conduct of op comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, due to which complainant is suffering recurring financial losses till today and also suffering serious harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of report Ex.C3 and copy of customer service record card Ex.C4.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has specifically deposed that he had purchased one Samsung LED Model No.32D6000 from opposite party for a sum of Rs.24,500/- vide bill No.9472 dated 9.7.2015 with guarantee of two years. He has further deposed that in the month of June, 2018, the above said LED stopped its working and he informed Samsung care centre for its repair. On 23.6.2018, service engineer visited his house and after checking the same reported that this LED is not of Samsung company brand rather it is a cheap branded LED. He has further deposed that in this manner, the op has cheated him by supplying inferior quality of LED to the complainant instead of Samsung. The complainant has also placed on record copy of bill Ex.C2 and copy of customer service record card Ex.C4. Since opposite party did not appear to rebut the plea and evidence of complainant as such evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Since it is proved on record that complainant had purchased LED from opposite party for a sum of Rs.24,500/- against bill No.9472 dated 9.7.2015 and LED was sold by op by saying that it was manufactured by Samsung company but as per report of service centre Ex.C4 it belongs to another brand, it appears that it is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant. As complainant has already used LED from 9.7.2015 till the month of June, 2018 when he found LED out of order, so complainant is not entitled to refund of full amount of the LED in question rather he appears to be entitled for refund of amount after deducting 50% amount on account of depreciation charges.

6.                In view of above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party either to replace the aforesaid LED with same make and model after adjusting 50% of the price of LED in question subject to deposit of LED in question by complainant or in the alternate to make refund of 50% of the amount of LED in question to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to further pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party is liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order subject to production of LED in question by complainant.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.   File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum.             Member                      President,

Dated:4.1.2019.                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.