Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-34/11.02.2019
Satnam Electronics - through its
Proprietor Charanjeet Singh Suri,
M-42, Greater Kailash Part-I, Delhi-110048 …Complainant
Versus
Jaswinder Singh Bedi, Prop. M/s Nanak Art
2958/3, Chuna Mandi,Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 11.02.2019
Date of Order: 18.11.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to dispute ) –The complainant had placed an order to the OP for preparation and installation of sign Board and also paid the consideration amount. The OP had extended warranty for a period of one year on entire board but the board was defective and after few days of purchase, its lights were not functioning properly. The OP failed to correct or rectify or replace the board or to return the amount despite legal notice. That is why, he filed the complaint for refund of deposit amount of Rs.23,600/-, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, litigation charges of Rs. 30,000/- besides other appropriate relief.
1.2. The OP was served with the notice on complaint with record, however, not only he failed to put appearance but also reply was not filed, the opportunity was closed on 21.03.2019.
2.1. (Case of complainant) –The complainant is a consumer and he is proprietor of M/s Satnam Electronics. The OP deals in all kind of printing, manufacturing of various types of sign board. The OP approached the complainant and also given presentation for preparation and supply of various type of sign board. The complainant placed an order for preparation and installation of sign board for Rs. 23,600/- which includes GST to the OP against invoice. The complainant also paid the amount of Rs. 23,600/- through cheque and NEFT , which is shown in the Ledger account of Nanak Art.
2.2. The OP had given warranty on entire board by writing specifically on the tax invoice, however, the board has been defective after a few days as its light is not functioning properly, which is also appearing from the photograph of sign board filed/annexed with the complaint.
The OP was informed and requested to remove the defect from sign board, however, despite repeated requests, there was no heed given by the OP till date. Mr. Saurabh Aggarwal and Mr. Sunny, of OP, were also requested on their mobile contact numbers to do needful besides to Mr. J. S. Bedi but no result. There is defect in the product as well as deficiency in the service besides unfair trade practice. The complainant was constrained to send legal notice dated 17.12.2018 by speed post and OP was asked to refund the amount immediately besides compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and legal notice charges of Rs. 5,000/- otherwise the complainant will be constrained to take appropriate legal action. The OP failed to comply the legal notice or to refund the amount. Moreover the complainant also suffered other trauma of financial loss, mental agony, stress, physical harassment. That is why the complaint.
2.3. The complaint is accompanied with tax invoice dated 13.09.2019, statement of account, a digital photograph of sign board, legal notice dated 17.12.2018.
2.4. The OP failed to file the reply/ written statement and also abstained from the proceeding. The complainant was given opportunity to lead evidence.
3. (Evidence)- The complainant led his detailed affidavit of evidence alongwith the documentary record filed with the complaint. The affidavit of evidence is replica of the complaint.
4. (Final hearing)- At the stage of final hearing, the complainant filed written arguments followed by oral submissions.
5.1 (Findings)- The contentions of complainant are assessed and considered, the complainant’s grievances in narration and the documents have already been referred in paragraph 2 above. In fact, the oral pleadings and evidence, as narrated, are emerging from the documentary record that complainant had purchased and got installed a sign board against invoice dated 13.09.2018 and on the face of invoice it is specifically mentioned that there is warranty on entire sign board for one year. The complainant had paid entire consideration amount, which has been shown in the in ledger account besides the entries in the statement of account issued by its banker. The digital photograph of sign board is also showing that the lights are not completely/properly functioning for the purposes the sign board was prepared and installed. The OP was requested by the complainant to remove the defect being within warranty period, however, the OP also failed to render the appropriate services even despite legal notice dated 17.12.2018.
As per digital photograph, the sign board is affixed on the face of premises of the complainant and it is not serving the purposes for which it was purchased and got installed vis-à-vis the OP failed to rectify the defect or to refund the amount. The complainant has succeeded to establish the facts and circumstances of defect in the product as well as deficiency in services.
5.2. Now simple question arises 'whether the complainant deserves order for removal of the defect/ repairs in the product' or 'refund of the amount'. Since it is a case of transaction of the year 2018, therefore, it is appropriate to direct for refund of the amount by the OP and directions for repairing the product would not be feasible. The complainant is held entitled to take refund of Rs.23,600/- from the OP.
5.3. The complainant also requests for interest, however, there is no agreed rate of interest between the parties, therefore, interest at the rate of 4% from the date of complaint till realization of the amount will meet both ends.
5.4. The complainant claims compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of harassment faced but without elaborating as to how the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been computed, there is no proof thereof. Moreover, in the legal notice compensation claimed was Rs.50,000/-. Whereas the compensation should be commensurate to the situation. Since the complainant was denied proper product and then its rectification of defect or subsequently refund, therefore, compensation of Rs. 6,000/- will meet both ends.
The complainant was constrained to issue legal notice prior to filing of complaint and then to file the complaint to seek reimbursement of his valid claim, therefore, cost of Rs. 5,000/- will meet both ends.
5.5. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP while directing the OP to pay amount of Rs. 23,600/-/- along with interest @ 4%pa from date of complainant, till realization of amount besides compensation of Rs. 6,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable in 30 days. In case the amount is not paid within 30 days, then OP will be liable to pay interest @ 6% pa on amount of Rs14,160/-.
6: Announced on this 18th November 2023 [कार्तिक 27, साका 1945].
7. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances.
[Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member (Female) President
