Complaint Case No :1424 of 2009

Date of Institution : 20.10.2009

Date of Decision : 04.12.2009



H.C.Gupta s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Gupta r/o Flat No. 2D Block-7, Rail Vihar MDC, Panchkula, Haryana.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1] Goldline Electronics, S.C.O.477-78, Sector-35-C, Chandigarh.



2] Samsung Electric Company, S.C.O.1-2, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.



..…Opposite Parties



CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by: Complainant in person.

OP No. 1 ex-parte.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.2.



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Succinctly put, the complainant purchased Samsung LCD 32” Model LA32B450C on 13.10.09, for Rs. 31,000/-from Goldline Electronics (OP-1), manufactured by Samsung (OP-2). The complainant stated that at the time of purchasing LCD, it was assured by the OPs that the LCD will be installed/demonstrated next day i.e. on 14.10.09 at 10.00 a.m, at their house but nobody came to their residence for the installation/demonstration of the said LCD till date. The complainant further stated that they contacted OPs, number of times on phone but OPs did not respond positively for installation of the said LCD and further supplied the contact numbers of the other persons to be contacted for installation/ demonstration, but even contacting them, was of no use at all. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, it is prayed by the complainant that OP be directed not to harass the general public and to award a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as the complainant and his family suffered from pain, humiliation and mental agony.

2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. None appeared for OP-1, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte.

3] On the other hand, OP-2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied all the material allegations of the complainant and pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and stated that they repeatedly called upon the complainant for visiting his house for the purpose of demonstration of the LCD, however, the complainant refused for demonstration of the LCD. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and urged to the Honorable Court to fix a time and date, when the LCD can be demonstrated as per the convenience of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5] We have heard the complainant in person and Learned Counsel for OP-2 and have also perused the record.

6] The LCD was to be installed and demonstration thereof was to be given by OP-1 from whom it was purchased. It is admitted case of the parties that LCD has not so far been installed nor the demonstration was given. The contention of OP-2 is that the complainant was contacted many times for this purpose but his family members refused to allow OP-1 to install the LCD and to give demonstration. This fact is denied by the complainant. If the family members refused to get the LCD installed or to accept demonstration, then this act would be known to the employees of OP-1 and they alone can depose about it but no such affidavit of the employees of OP-1 has been placed on file as to who contacted the complainant and to whom refusal was conveyed. Rather, OP-1 did not contest the present complaint and was proceeded against ex-parte, which shows that it has nothing to say against the allegation of deficiency on his part made by the complainant. A perusal of the retail invoice annexure A1, shows that the telephone number of the complainant has been given therein. It is not the case of the OPs, if the complainant was ever contacted on this phone number to fix the time for the installation of the LCD. Rather the contention of the complainant is that he had been asking the OPs to install the LCD because the same was taken by him on account of Diwali festival but the entire purpose of purchase was defeated by OP-1 on account of its non-installation. When the complainant spent Rs.31,000/- for the purchase of the LCD, the question of his refusal to get it installed in his house did not arise. There is no document produced on file to suggest as to when the employees of the OPs went to the premises of the complainant to install the LCD, and who refused to get it installed. The OPs have therefore made a false contention in this respect. It appears that due to festival season the OPs remained busy in selling the LCDs and neglected to install the same after its sale. There was therefore deficiency on the part of the OP-1 and he must compensate the complainant for causing him mental and physical harassment.

7] In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeeded. The same is accordingly allowed. OP-1 is directed to install the LCD at the house of the complainant immediately and pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- alongwith litigation of Rs.1,100/- within15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which he would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum since the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 20.10.09, till the same is actually paid to the complainant.