DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Execution Application No. : 42/2016
Date of Institution : 05.08.2016
Date of Decision : 30.11.2017
Hari Krishan s/o Bhim Sain resident of Mittal Street, Gali No. 4, Rambagh Road, Barnala.
…DH/Applicant/Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-11004 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Mukesh Telecom, Rambagh Road, Opp. CRPF Office, Barnala through its partners/prop.
…JDs/Respondents/Opposite Parties
Execution Application under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for the DH/complainant.
Sh. GS Gumti Sandhu counsel for JDs/opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Presiding Member
2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(BY MS. VANDNA SIDHU, PRESIDNG MEMBER):
This order shall dispose of an Execution Application under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the DH/applicant/ complainant on 5.8.2016 in case titled “Hari Krishan Versus Sony India Private Limited and another.”
2. In this Execution Application it is submitted by the complainant/DH in regard of a complaint No. 719 of 2015 which was allowed on 7.6.2016 directing the opposite parties to repair the LED in question and make it in working condition within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if they found that it cannot be made in a fit condition and repairs then opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are directed to replace the defective parts of the LED with new one.
3. In the first week of July 2016 the mechanics of the opposite parties visited the residence of the applicant and tried their best to rectify the problem in the LED but all in vain and the mechanics told the applicant that their senior mechanics will come and check the LED and further told that as per their view the panel of LED needs to be replaced with a new one. In 2nd week of July 2016 senior mechanics came and check the LED but failed to rectify the problem.
4. Upon notice of this Execution Application the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed reply/objections on the ground that the present Execution Application is arising out of order dated 7.6.2016 whereby this Forum directed the opposite parties to provide free of cost repairs with respect to the LED in question and to make the same in a workable condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It was further directed that in case if the said LED is irrepairable, in such a scenario, the opposite parties were directed to replace the defective part(s). It is pertinent to mention here that no orders for replacement of LED or refund the purchase value was passed by this Forum. Upon getting the knowledge of the said order, the opposite parties without any delay contacted the complainant to comply the order and the concerned expert from the company inspected the said LED TV. Through inspection it was observed that LED TV has no problem at all. The same was working in absolutely fine condition. The opposite parties duly demonstrated the said TV to the complainant but the complainant was not ready to accept that the said LED was in working condition. The opposite parties have duly inspected the said LED and found no trouble in the same. Jds/respondents prayed that to pass an order in regard of dismissal of present Execution Application alongwith costs.
5. In reply of preliminary/objections it is submitted that opposite parties never came to the house nor called to compliance of the order.The opposite parties filed this reply with malafide intention just to cheat the complainant and this Forum. It is denied that inspite of orders of this Forum opposite parties never contacted nor call the complainant and neither demonstrated the alleged TV. The story of the reply is filed with malafide intention. It is denied that opposite parties have duly inspected the said LED and found no trouble in the same. It is denied that the complainant is not ready to accept the same. It is submitted that opposite parties never called or neither visited the residence of the complainant. So, there is no question to inspect or refused by the complainant. The applicant prayed that the reply of the opposite parties be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. As per law Court cannot go beyond decree/order. In the present Execution order was passed on 7.6.2016 and the directions were given to the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to repair the LED in question and to make it in working condition within the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order and if they found that it cannot be made in a fit condition and beyond repairs then the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are directed to replace the defective parts of the LED with a new one. So, the present Execution filed on the basis of order passed on 7.6.2016. In the present Execution in para No. 2 DH himself admitted that in 1st week of July 2016 mechanics of opposite parties visited the residence of the applicant and in preliminary objections of the opposite parties submitted that after getting knowledge about the said order the opposite parties without any delay contacted the complainant to comply the order and the concerned expert from the company inspected the said LED TV. It was observed that said LED TV has no problem at all the same was working in absolutely fine condition. The said fact was informed to the complainant and on the face of it the opposite parties have duly demonstrated the said TV to the complainant. The pictures and the videos of the said LED were in a proper working condition.
8. So, Forum is of the view that the order dated 7.6.2016 is in regard of repair of LED and if they found that it cannot be made in a fit condition and beyond repairs the opposite parties are directed to replace the defective parts of the LED with a new one. So, again this Forum after considering Execution and other documents by DH/complainant and Jds/ respondents has a view that opposite parties make visit at the home of DH/ complainant to inspect the LED in question and if they found that due to some defective part of the LED it is not working properly they are directed to replace the defective parts of the LED and make it in working condition. This Forum is also a view that both parties bring on record their proofs/ expert reports alongwith affidavits if the complainant/DH is not satisfied and LED is not in proper working condition with fresh Execution Application. The present Execution Application is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
30th Day of November 2017
(Vandna Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
