Case No.171/09

In the matter of :

Sh. Yogesh Kumar,

R/o X-3652/8, Shanti Mohalla,

Street No.4, Gandhi Nagar,

Delhi-110031. …..Complainant

Versus

1. Sansui Electronic India Ltd.,

27, Kasturba Gandhi Mag,

New Delhi. ……OP1

2. Neel Kanth Electronics,

IX/2269, Main Road,

Kailash Nagar,

Delhi-110031. ……OP2

O R D E R

T.VIJAYAN, MEMBER

1.0 Complainant’s claim:

On 07.10.2001, the complainant purchased for Rs.12,200/- one Sansui TV from OP2. Complainant claims that he paid Rs.2200/- extra for the TV as OP2 have promised seven years guarantee. As per complainant, OP2 had informed that in case the TV set became faulty within seven years, the TV shall be replaced. The complainant has contacted OP for repair of his TV but they are avoiding him. He has to incur expenses to take the defective TV to OP and it is also causing harassment. He has, therefore approached this Forum to issue directions to OP to repair his TV and also to refund the amount of Rs.2200/- extra collected from him besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the harassment caused as well as Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

2.0 Written statement of OP:

On filing of the complaint, notices were issued to OPs. OP1 did not appear before this Forum and case was not contested by them. Hence, the case proceeded exparte against OP1. OP2 submitted written statement refuting the claims of the complainant. As per OP2, complainant had purchased one Sansui TV for a sum of Rs.12,200/- and no additional amount was taken. They also denied that OP had assured that TV would be replaced. OP1 further mentions that OP2 is a dealer and warranty is provided by OP1. They also pointed out that TV worked properly for the entire period of seven years and submitted that present complaint is time barred.

3.0 Rejoinder and evidence.

Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the OP2 refuting their allegations and also filed his evidence by way of affidavit reaffirming his claims in the complaint. OP2 also filed their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating their contentions in the written statement.

4.0 Arguments and analysis of the pleadings:

We have heard the arguments by both the parties and also gone through the records carefully. The record shows that TV in question was purchased by complainant from OP2 vide bill no.10383 dated 09.10.2001 for Rs.12,200/-. This bill inter-alia indicates that “we have given the warranty of goods on behalf of company”. It also indicates that warranty card has been received by the complainant. The warranty card document filed by complainant before this Forum is incomplete and does not indicate its various terms and conditions for the seven years warranty. Even seven years warranty got completed on 06.10.2008 and complainant has filed complaint before this Forum on 17.03.2009, much after completion of the warranty period. In support of the complaint, complainant has mentioned in his affidavit that “on 01.10.2008 vide complaint no.5A0120810010071 was also be given by the complainant to the opposite party but no necessary action was taken by the same”. But this evidence is not corroborated with any other details like to which OP he has given the complaint, what is the nature of the complaint etc. There is also no records to suggest that complainant has faced any problem in the TV set during entire seven years warranty period after its purchase.

5.0 Conclusion and final order:

In the above circumstances, the claims of the complainant do not get established and the complaint is devoid of merit and as such the same is dismissed.