DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 4.1.2019

                                      Decided on: 9.4.2024

Lovely Kumar aged about 34 years son of Sh.Gopal Chand resident of House No.B16/75, Mohalla Soot Battan near CIA Staff, Patiala.

                                                                    …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Techno Kart India Ltd., Shop No.1047/79, Dharampura Bazar Patiala through its Proprietor MOB:-01755017951.
2. SANSUI JAPANESE TECHOLOGY, registered office CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400098 through its Managing Director, Director authorized official.
3. Pardeep Kumar representative of Techno Kart India Ltd., Shop No.1047/79, Dharampura Bazar Patiala through its Proprietor Mob:01755017951.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Gorki Dhiman, counsel for complainant.

                                      OPs No.1&2 ex-parte.

                                      Complaint against OP No.3 withdrawn.

 ORDER

                                      GAGANDEEP GOSAL, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Lovely Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Techno Kart India Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that complainant purchased LED of Sansui company vide invoice No.8761172096 dated 8.2.2016 on the assurance of the OPs that the amount of LED would be returned back after passing of five years. That from the date of purchase of LED it started giving problems and within few days mother board, speaker and switches stopped working. Complainant called the office of OP No.1 and said problems were resolved.
3. That after some time of repair, the said LED again started giving same problems. Complainant called office of OP No.1 and problems were again resolved.
4. That again on 16.8.2018, LED in question started giving problems and stopped working. Complainant called office of OP No.2. Reference No.CHA1308180130 dated 16.8.2018 was sent on the mobile of the complainant. That representative of OP No.2 visited the house of complainant and tried to resolve the problem of LED. He stated that the said problem could not be resolved here at home and some parts are required to be replaced and failed to resolve the problem in the LED. That there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as they failed to repair the LED. The act and conduct of the OPs caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving directions to the OPs to provide New LED of 50”; to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation.
5. Notice of the complaint was duly issued to the OPs. OP No.1 failed to appear despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. OP No.2 refused to accept the notice and was accordingly proceeded against exparte, while vide separate statement complainant withdrew his complaint against OP No.3.
6.  In ex-parte evidence, ld.counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 and C2 copies of bills, Ex.C3 copy of information received from the OP, Ex.C4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C8 copy of warranty card and closed evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. The averments made by the complainant remained unrebutted and uncontroverted as the OPs chose not to appear despite service of notice so issued to them.
9.           Admittedly complainant has purchased LED in question from OP No.1 vide invoice No.8761172096 on 8.2.2016 against a consideration of Rs.50,000/- as per invoice,Ex.C1. The said LED was purchased under the scheme Jitna Do Utna Lo 2015 offer and complainant was offered a redemption voucher of Rs.29500/- on the next purchase of Kail Ltd. products on completion of four years eleven months from the date of current purchase to be redeemed by the Sansui or its authorized dealer, distributor, agent/website, as per Ex.C8. The said product was also covered under the warranty of five years as per the above said certificate bearing Sr.No.50SMN004490 dated 10.2.2016.
10. The complainant has then alleged in paras No.5&6 of the complaint that the LED in question started giving problems and he called the office of OP No.1 and said problem was resolved. Complainant has further alleged that again on 16.8.2018 the said LED started giving problems and a complaint was then lodged by him on the same date which was registered with reference No.CHA1308180130, which is Ex.C3. Complainant has alleged that complaint was then attended by the representative of the OPs but the issue was not resolved. Various efforts were put in by the complainant to reach the OPs for resolution of his complaint but of no avail. Finally legal notice, Ex.C4 was then issued by the complainant on 30.11.2018 but the issue was not resolved.
11. A perusal of the above documents clearly indicates that the LED which was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 and manufactured by OP No.2 got defective within the warranty period. However, the LED was not repaired and made operational by OPs No.1&2 inspite of the complaints having been lodged by the complainant with the OPs which is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part leading to mental tension and harassment to the complainant          
12. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and order the OPs No.1&2 jointly & severally to  repair the LED in question of the complainant free of cost within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order, to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant will be at liberty to videograph / record all the proceedings being carried out by the OPs for the repair of the LED in question.
13. If the OPs fail to repair the said LED within the said period then they are directed to either replace the same with new one of the same make with new warranty or to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- i.e. the cost of the LED to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the lodging of the complaint i.e. 16.8.2018 within the prescribed period.The OPs are further burdened to pay  Rs.10,000/-as compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment to him within the prescribed period of 30 days.
14. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                          President