BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 653 of 2015
Date of Institution: 03.11.2015
Date of Decision: 04.05.2016
Gulbarg Singh son of Nirmal Singh, resident of 71-D, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through Sh.Balbir Singh son of s.Santa Singh, resident of 230A, Fairland Colony, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar, attorney.
Complainant
Versus
- M/s.Wal-Mart India Pvt.Ltd. Best Price Modern Wholesale, 75/26/75/14, AIPL Ambuja Dream City, Village: Manawala, G.T.Road, Amritsar through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory.
- Panasonic Service Centre, A.C.Plaza, 205/3, Goal Masjid Gurdwara, near Bus Stand, Amritsar through its Manager/ Authorised Signatory.
- Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd. 12th Floor, Ambience Island, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana)
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Balbir Singh attorney of the complainant.
For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Exparte.
For Opposite Party No.3: Ms.Preeti Mahajan, Advocate.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Balbir Singh attorney of the complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one 32” LED Panasonic from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill on 20.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.23,990/-. Said Led was gifted by the complainant to his niece Rajbir Kaur on her marriage. At the time of selling the said LED the Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that the LED is of a very reputed company and it will not give any chance to complaint about it in the near future and only on the assurance of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant purchased the said LED from Opposite Party No.1. Said LED became defective and the complainant through Rajbir Kaur made a complaint on 20.7.2015 to customer care of Opposite Parties vide complaint No. 200715088146, but no action was taken by the company and the complainant through Rajbir Kaur again made a complaint on 25.7.2015 vide complaint No. R-250715110965 and on the said complaints, the employee of Opposite Parties from Service Centre, Amritsar visited the house of Rajbir Kaur and told that one part of the said LED has become defective. He further assured the complainant to replace the same with new one, as and when it will receive from the company. On asking by Rajbir Kaur, the service centre told her that the required part has not been received from the company and as and when the same is received, it will be replaced. On 18.9.2015 Rajbir Kaur received a telephonic call from Service Centre, Amritsar that the required part is not available with the company and for that reason, said Rajbir Kaur will be given the new LED for which service centre, Amritsar demanded some documents from Rajbir Kaur who provided the same on 22.9.2015 by hand. The officials of Service Centre, Amritsar told Rajbir Kaur that new LED will be given to her within a period of 10-15 days, but for a month, no action was taken in the matter. On 10.10.2015 Rajbir Kaur again made a complaint vide complaint No.R-1010151520713 to Opposite Parties. OPn the next day, one person from service centre, Amrisar visited at the premises of Rajbir Kaur and took the photographs of LED, but even then, no action was taken in the matter. On 13.10.2015 Rajbir Kaur again lodged a complaint vide complaint No. R-131015533382 to ops vide complaint No. R-131015533382 to Opposite Parties and assured that the complaint has been sent to the higher authority. On the next day, said Rajbir Kaur received a telephone from the higher authority that the required part was received, the same will be changed within two days, but uptil now, no action has been taken in the matter. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may be directed either to put the Led in complete order and/ or to replace the same with new one of the same model
b) to refund the whole sale price alongwith interest from the date of purchase uptil date.
c) compensation of Rs.20000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 not appeared despite due service, so Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as the complainant has concealed the true and correct facts. The first complaint was lodged on 20.7.2015 with regard to ‘non-playing of pen drive’ in the LED in dispute. Accordingly, Service Engineer visited the premises where the LED was lying installed and checked the Led which was perfectly working, but it was not reading the pen-drive for which a specific part namely ‘A-Board’ required to be replaced. As service engineer was not carrying the said part with him, he told the users of the product that he would get that part on next day and problem would be rectified. On the next day, when Service Engineer visited the premises, the persons present at the house did not permit him to repair the product and insisted that the Led be replaced. Resultantly, the Service Engineer has to come back. Said part was never out of stock with the answering Opposite Party as alleged in the complaint. It was never offered by the answering Opposite Party to replace the LED in question as alleged in the complaint; that the complainant has not sought the permission of this Forum under section 11(2) of the Act before instituting the present complaint against the answering Opposite Party; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act as the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the sole purpose of harassing and pressurising the answering Opposite Party to succumb to his unreasonable and mischievous demand and that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of Led TV with damages and litigation cost. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint are specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. In his bid to prove the case, Sh.Balbir Singh attorney of the complainant made into the witness box on behalf of the complainant and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 of the complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy membership card Ex.C2, copy of affidavit of Gulbarg Singh Ex.C3, copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of aadhar card Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rahul Nagpal, branch Service Incharge Ex.Op3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.
6. We have heard Sh.Balbir Singh attorney of the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record, besides written arguments/ synopsis advanced on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
7. From the appreciation of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased LED in question on 20.10.2014 from Opposite Party No.1, copy of the bill whereof accounts for Ex.C4. It is in evidence that LED in question was not working properly and Rajbir Kaur to whom the complainant was gifted the LED, lodged a complaint on various occasions, but the Opposite Parties did not remove the defect in the LED in dispute. A perusal of written statement would reveal that Opposite Parties are still ready to rectify the defect in the LED of the complainant without any charges. This offer finds recorded in para No.4 of the written reply. Had the LED in question been without any defect or was working perfectly, there was absolutely no reason for the Opposite Party to make such an offer. The very fact that the defective part of the LED in question has not been replaced so far go to show that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are deficient in service.
8. Consequently, the complaint is allowed to the effect that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 shall repair the LED in question free of cost, to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is directed to deposit the LED in question with Opposite Party No.2 i.e. service centre of the company, within 15 days of the passing of this order against receipt who shall rectify/ repair the LED in question, to the satisfaction of the complainant, within further period of 30 days, without any charge. The complainant is also awarded compensation for mental agony and physical pain to the tune of Rs.2000/- to be paid by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 stands dismissed. If the compliance of this order is not made within the specified period, the complainant shall be at liberty to invoke the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 04.05.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
