Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/817/2017

Sanjeev Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance Digital - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/817/2017
Date of Institution	:	23/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	30/01/2018

Sanjeev Mahajan s/o late Sh. O.P. Mahajan, # 60, Sector 18, Panchkula 134109.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Reliance Digital, Shop No.247, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.178 & 178A, Industrial & Business Park, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002 through its Manager.

2.     M/s Panasonic, 12^th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, NH 8, Lane Number V-40, DLF Phase 3, Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana 122002 through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Saurav Mahajan, Authorised representative of complainant.
	:	OPs ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 27.9.2015, the complainant purchased a Panasonic LED 42A from OP-1 and he was informed that the same carried 3 years guarantee.  The said LED developed some defect and did not turn on w.e.f. 23.8.2017 and the complainant made multiple calls to the call centre of the OPs.  However, the OPs failed to fix the problem due to which the complainant had to purchase another TV for Rs.15,000/-.  The representative of OP-1 took the LED from the complainant’s place on 13.9.2017 with the promise to fix the issue within 7 days, but, the OPs failed to do so. Finally OP-2 addressed the complainant’s issue and demanded Rs.14,618/- vide email dated 13.11.2017.  The complainant replied to the email of OP-2, but, thereafter no response was received.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 15.1.2018, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the authorised representative of the complainant.
5.         It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.41,849/- for the purchase of one Panasonic LED 42A from OP-1 on 27.9.2015 with three years warranty.  As per the case of the complainant, the LED in question is not turning on w.e.f. 23.8.2017.  Vide Annexure C-4, OP-2 addressed the issue and replied to the complainant that he may pay Rs.14,618/- to get a new product after fixing the depreciation value of the product in question showing its inability to repair.
6.         OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of the OPs show that it has nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant.  Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.         We feel that it is for the OPs only to consider the issue of repair/availability of spare parts before selling the product to the gullible customers.  But, in the present case, after selling the LED in question to the complainant, the OPs themselves are deciding without fixing the issue in question i.e. of the repair of the LED in question to make up the mind of the complainant to purchase another LED from them when the branded product in question could not survive even for the warranty period. We feel that the complainant suffered due to no fault on his part, rather the OPs forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.  Hence, the acts of the OPs in non-repairing the product in question, keeping the same in their possession and most importantly non-appearing during the proceedings of the present case prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which certainly has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the LED in question i.e. Rs.41,849/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
30/01/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	President