DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 11.1.2018

                                      Decided on: 7.1.2021

Harinder Pal Singh son of Jaswant Singh, resident of H.No.242/8, Dogra Mohalla, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. New Vicky Electronics, Gaushala Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.
2. FENDA Audio India Pvt. Ltd. 8/41, 2^nd Floor, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110015.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Narinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Hemant Nanda, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Opposite Party No.2 Ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Harinder Pal Singh   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against New Vicky Electronics and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased audio speaker system make Fenda Model A521 (2.1) from OP No.1 vide invoice No.910 dated 5.11.2016 for Rs.2800/- with ‘one year warranty only by service center’ written by OP No.1 himself on the invoice. The complainant got installed the same with some other electronic products available at his house.
3. It is averred that the said speaker system run only for a month and stopped working due to some manufacturing defects because it started creating troubles of On-Off. Complainant approached OP No.1 and brought the said problem to his knowledge. It is averred that OP No.1 kept the same with him with the assurance that he will get the same repaired at his own within 4-5 days from service centre of the company of OP No.2.Thereafter, the complainant visited OP No.1 time and again to get back his speaker system back but in vain. Ultimately, OP No.1 delivered the speaker but it did not work properly as the trouble of automatically turning on-off was still existed.
4. It is after averred that OP No.1 also admitted that there is manufacturing defect in the speaker system and extended the warranty period of the same by cutting the purchase date of 5.11.2016 with 4.9.2017 on the retail invoice. It is averred that on 18.11.2017, the complainant approached OP No.1 to get the said system replaced with new one but to no effect. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 16.12.2017 upon the OPs but no reply was filed. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental harassment and agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs the replace the above said speaker system with new one , to give compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, whereas OP No.2 did not come present to contest the case and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.5.2018.
6. In the reply filed by OP No.1, it raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is liable to dismissed against OP No.1 as it being an agent/dealer of OP No.2.
7. On merits, it is admitted that OP No.1 is running the shop of various electronic goods and also used to sale the audio electronic products like speakers, woofers and home theatre systems etc. It is also admitted that one year guarantee ‘only by service centre was written on the invoice/bill’.It is also admitted that the complainant approached OP No.1 regarding the problems of the speaker and in his presence OP No.1  sent the speaker to OP No.2 for repairing the same. It is further admitted that extended warranty was written by OP No.1. It is averred that as per direction of OP No.2, OP No.1 handed over new speaker to the complainant. There is thus no deficiency in service  on the part of the OP as it always accommodate the complainant beyond his limit. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Lal Chand Singla, Proprietor of OP No.1 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased audio speaker system make FENDA Model A521(2.1) on 5.11.2016 for Rs.2800/- from OP No.1 in cash. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant got installed the said speaker at his house but the same was having some manufacturing defect. The ld. counsel further argued that the said defect was brought to the knowledge of OP No.1 but of no avail and prayed that complaint be allowed.
12. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued that the responsibility is of OP No.2 and not of OP No.1.The ld. counsel further argued that award can be passed against OP No.2.
13. In support of the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he deposed as per his complaint.Ex.C1 is cash memo dated 4.9.2017 of Rs.2800/-  vide which the complainant purchased the speaker with one year warranty.Ex.C2 is legal notice.Exs.C3 and C4 are postal receipts.
14. On the other hand, the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit, Ex.OPA and has deposed as per the pleadings.
15. The speaker was purchased on 4.9.2017, vide cash memo,Ex.C1.Ex.C2 is the legal notice but no reply was filed against the legal notice. So it is clear that there was some defect in the speaker. The speaker is stated to be manufactured by OP No.2 and was sold by OP No.1,so both the OPs are duty bound to remove the defect.
16. So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands allowed.The OPs are directed to exchange the speaker system with new one of the same brand.They are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as compensation.      

Compliance of the order be made by theOPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:7.1.2021         

                   Y.S.Matta        Vinod Kumar Gulati       Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                    Member                Member                                   President