District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No. 52/2023.

 Date of Institution:24.01.2023.

Date of Order:.14.07.2023.

Sapna W/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad R/o House No. 1721, Nangla Enclave, Part-2, NIT Faridabad (Haryana).

                                                         …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

Intex Technologies (I) Ltd., A-61, Turn Road, Okhla Phase -11, Okhla Industrial estate, New Delhi -110020

                                                                              …Opposite party

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh. Bhagwati Prasad, husband of the complainant.

                             Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2023.

ORDER:

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  his wife had purchased a Intex LED 4018FHD S.No. 2112211509164103773 on 23.10.2016 under 5 years warranty from opposite party. About the   year of 2020 year led manual button giving problem of complainant and the complainant managed to lodge a complaint and the technician of opposite party visited and sorted out the

problem.  But in the year of 2021, again LED display giving problem and many times display giving problem and many time display picture not seen only sound listen of complainant.  The complainant had lodged the complaint on 12.05.2021 bearing complaint NO. B051290010159 of opposite party and within only after about 7-10 days technician of opposite party revisited and checked LED of the complainant.  The fact of brought to the knowledge of complainant by the technician of opposite party that the display part was not working and he placed an order & when display part come he would change.  After elapsing the period of one week the complainant called him but he was not picked call of complainant.  After that the complainant  again called upto customer care and told them to transfer call/complaints to seniors or Area Manager of opposite parties and also followed many times continue follow up to customer care so finally customer care staff told to the complainant that the complaint of the complainant should be sorted out before or by 20.06.2021, his LED part reach to service centre on dated 19.06.2021.    The complainant received  a message form Intex “Dear Customer, His ISN OTP was 98760, if he is satisfied with the services, please share this ISN with their engineer against the ref. NO. B051290010159”.  After receiving SMS around one hour on the part of oppose party, the engineer of opposite party called to the complainant that  “their LED replacement done by company and he would reach  his home to collect old LED & setup new LED”.  The complainant told him that the complainant received satisfy OTP from company and he told to the complainant to give him OTP but the complaint brought the fact to his knowledge that when he setup replaced lED after that complaint would give OTP.  He set up LED and the complainant provided OTP to him.  After taking OTP, he demanded from  extra cost of Rs.4000/- from complainant.  Prior setting up LED he was not

intimated for extra cost of Rs.4000/-. The complainant enquired him before setting/installing lED that “why he were not told them for extra cost”.  Thereafter, he himself called to the complainant and brought the fact to the knowledge that the company give a replacement of lED after installing  it he demanded extra charge, but the complainant did not pay extra amount of Rs.4000/- meantime, he locked the TV and taking the emote & misbehave with the wife of complainant.  After sometime, the complainant received a call from the Area Manager of opposite party and he also insisted to the  complainant to make payment after the return remote of complainant and he threatened to complainant  that “if he did not make the payment (Area Manager) lodge a FIR again complainant and the complainant brought the fact to his knowledge that “why he lodged FIR against him”, meantime the customer care of opposite party brought  the fact to the knowledge of complainant that “ the company had given a replacement TV and also first time not asking for difference amount and then questioned that “why he misbehaved with his wife”.      Thereafter, the opposite party gave replacement dated 12.08.2021 but its modal number 4016 FHD different & its old LED with stretch after some day display picture had problem screen look greenish & service center executive come & tell it’s had problem and dated 27.09.2021 service centre executive told to the complainant that the complainant would received another replacement but the opposite party did not replace the LED TV.   The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to replace the defected TV and pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical suffering suffered on the parts of the complainant.

2.                Registered notice issued to opposite party on 17.02.2023 not received

back either served or unserved.  Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party.  Learned counsel for the complainant file the tracking report in which the item delivery confirmed.  Therefore, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide on 20.03.2022.

3.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

4                  We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Intex Technologies (I) Ltd. with the prayer to replace the defected TV and pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical suffering suffered on the parts of the complainant.

                   Shri Bhagwati Prasad, husband of the complainant has made a statement that affidavit and documents filed by the complainant may be read as evidence on behalf of the complainant and closed the same.  Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the complainant has been closed vide order dated 27.04.2023.

 6.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.

7.                Opposite party is directed to replace the LED in question with the same model to  the complainant.  Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/-

as compensation for causing mental agony  & harassment alongwith  Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  The complainant is also  directed to hand over the old LED in question to the opposite party after receipt of the copy of the order.  Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  14.07.2023                                       (Amit Arora)

                                                                                          President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                             (Mukesh Sharma)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                  Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                               Redressal Commission, Faridabad.