Hardeep Singh vs ARVINDRA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

THIS is an appeal filed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-I], dated 29.7.2003 in Complaint Case No. 50 of 2002; "Hardeep Singh v. M/s Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Limited and Anr."

THE complainant has alleged that he purchased a Sansui 22" T.V., Model SV 2010 from M/s Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd./ O.P. No. 1 on 16.12.2000. THE T.V. was financed through G.E. Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Limited/O.P. No. 2. THE T.V. set became defective after a month and it was replaced with a new set but the replaced set also went out of order within a week. THE complainant approached O.P. No.1 but they said that they could do nothing in the matter, hence this complainant praying for refund of entire amount paid for the T.V. as he is not interested in this sub-standard make T.V. set. He also prayed for grant of compensation for harassment as well as cost of litigation but no amount was specified. O.P. No. 1 did not appear in spite of notice and was hence proceeded against ex parte.

O.P. No. 2 put in apearance and pleaded that no relief has been claimed qua him and therefore, requested that the complaint against O.P. No. 2 be dismissed.

LEARNED District Forum-I in their analysis of the case found that the complainant had not given any details of defects in the T.V., nor any expert opinion stating that there was any manufacturing defect in the T.V. has been placed on record. It, therefore, held that refund of price of the T.V. cannot be ordered. However, it directed O.P. No. 1 to check the T.V. set and rectify the defects whatever are therein. Aggrieved by this order the complainant has filed this appeal. The appeal was taken on board. Notices were sent to the respondents and record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-I, Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant. None appeared for respondent No. 1 but Mr. H.S. Kathpal, Advocate appeared for respondent No. 2.

SINCE, respondent No. 1 did not put in appearance, it was proceeded against ex parte. On the day of arguments i.e. 3rd December, 2003, the Appellant Mr. Hardeep Singh appeared in person and argued his case. His sole contention is that the T.V. set is non-functional and he prays for refund of his amount paid for the T.V. However, he conceded that he has not put on record any expert evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in the T.V. He also submitted that in spite of the impugned order, respondent No. 1 is not repairing the T.V. set. Mr. H.S. Kathpal, Advocate, Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that nothing is claimed qua his client and hence there is no case against respondent No. 2.

UNDER the circumstances, based on evidence on record, we find that it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1 in not providing adequate after-sale service to the appellant and no manufacturing defect in the set is proved by any evidence. Consequently, we find that the impugned order directing O.P. No. 1/respondent No. 1 to check the T.V. set and rectify the defects whatever are therein, is just and fair. Therefore, in our considerd view, the impugned order needs no interference and the same is upheld.

THERE being no merit in the appeal it is dismissed without any order to costs. If O.P. No. 1 fails to comply with the directions given in the impugned order, the appellant, if advised, is at liberty to file an execution application in the concerned District Forum to secure compliance of directions given in the impugned order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. Appeal dismissed.