BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.237 of 2020.
Date of institution: 11.08.2020.
Date of decision:10.01.2022.
Balkar Singh S/o Sh. Dalbir Singh, r/o H.No.302, Ward No.18, Janakpuri Colony, Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. Dehla Road VPO Manpura, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P. Pin Code-173205 through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer (Manufacturer Address).
- Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. A-61 Okhla Industrial Area Phase II, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer (Marketing Office Address).
- M/s. Gulati Electronics, SCO-54 first floor opposite New Bus Stand Kheri Markanda Road, Kurukshetra Haryana through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer(Service Centre address).
- M/s. Surya Trading Company, Opposite Syndicate Bank, Dhand Road, Kaithal-136027 through its authorized officer Parveen Gupta.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Himanshu Mittal, Advocate, for the complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Balkar Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’).
2. The OPs have been proceeded against exparte as despite notice, they did not appear.
3. Sh. Himanshu Mittal, Adv. for the complainant has stated that the consumer Balkar Singh purchased a 4310 Intex 43” LED from the Op No.4, who is authorized dealer of Ops No.1 to 3 vide bill No.8745 dt. 26.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- against the warranty of five years.
He further argued that the above-said LED got defective on 27.06.2020 and it was not displaying the picture and only sound system was working.
The complainant approached the Op No.4 on 27.06.2020 and disclosed the above-said problem. On 29.06.2020 a representative of the Ops No.1 to 3 visited the house of complainant and checked the LED and told the complainant that the panel/mother-board got defective. On the same day, the above-said representative contacted Op No.3 i.e. service-centre and Op No.3 acknowledged the default and told him that the above-said defect will be rectified within a week.
Thereafter, complainant contacted telephonically the Ops but the Ops kept same that the defect will be rectified within a week and LED is in warranty period. It has been stated by ld. counsel Sh. Himanshu Mittal that another lady namely Smt. Sudesh Rani also purchased the same LED from Op No.4 vide bill No.8662 on 11.10.2016 for amounting to Rs.32,400/- but the aforesaid LED was also got defective and it was not displaying the picture and only sound system was working but on the request of said Sudesh Rani, the Ops replaced the said LED with the new one. But the Ops did not replace the LED of complainant/consumer Balkar Singh.
4. An application under Section 38(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was moved by the complainant for technical expert to see the defect in the aforesaid LED. Mark-A is the report of technical expert namely Hitesh Kumar Gera, Electronics Instructor, ITI, Kaithal vide which it has been stated that panel of LED is faulty and it is not repairable. Due to the above mentioned reasons, the LED is not working. The said expert has also reported in the said report that the LED is not in working condition.
In view of the aforesaid report given by technical expert, the case of complainant is fully substantiated. Complainant has supported his versions by way of filing affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexue-C1 & Annexure-C2. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear in the present case and opted to proceed against exparte. Hence, the case of consumer is proved to hint to the effect that there was defect in the LED which was purchased by the complainant/consumer from the Op No.4 for amounting to Rs.27,000/-.
5. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.27,000/- i.e. cost of LED to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization within two months. The Ops are also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony including the cost of litigation charges. The Ops are jointly and severally liable. In default of making the payment, it will carry penal interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order i.e. 10.01.2022. A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:10.01.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
