Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/462/2018

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

CROMA TV Seller - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	462/2018
Date of Institution	:	14.08.2018
Date of Decision	:	06/12/2018

 

                                                

                                                         

 

Parveen Kumar  s/o Balam Ram r/o 299/3 Pipliwala Town,  Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

Croma, TV Seller, Show Room No.   , Sector 22-B, Chandigarh

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:

Complainant in person.

None for OP.

         

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a LED TV  for Rs.15,990/- from the OP, having one year warranty. The LED TV developed defect on the next day and he complained the OP regarding it who sent a engineer but he did not succeed in removing the defect/problem. Subsequently he met the salesgirl of the OP who assured him that the defect in the TV was to be removed but to no effect.  It has further been averred that he requested the OP to refund the price of the TV but they refused to do so. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In its written statement, the OP has admitted that the complainant had purchased the LED TV in question.  It has been pleaded that  on inspection of the TV, it was found that there was defect in some part of the LED TV and therefore, the same was not working. It has further been pleaded that the OP was always reverted to the grievances of the complainant but it was he who was not ready to accept the resolution. It has further been pleaded that the OP is still ready to provide refund/replacement of the product but he is not ready to accept the same. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
4.           In its reply, it has been stated by the OP that they are ready to refund the amount of the LED TV  in question. Since the OP showed his willingness to refund the price of the LED TV in question after the filing of the instant complaint and, therefore, we deems fit that the interest of justice would be met if the OP is directed to refund the price of the TV in question to the complainant along with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,500/-  on account of the mental agony and the litigation expenses because the TV in question became defective on the very next day of its purchase and the OP has failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite having the knowledge that there was some major defect in it.
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to refund Rs.15,990/- being the price of the LED TV in question to the complainant along with a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,500/- as compensation on account of the mental agony and the litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the complaint till its realization.
6.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06/12/2018

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER