First Appeal No. 234 of 2014. Case: Santosh Gupta Vs Gupta Vision. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 234 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Lakhbir Singh, Advocate |
| Judges | Sham Sunder, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 39 (UT Chd.) |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2014 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Padma Pandey, Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.4.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one. Mitashi LED TV Model No. 22v07 from opposite party No. 1 on 12.11.2011, having one year warranty against bill (Ann. C-1). It was stated that just after a few days of purchase, the LED TV started giving problems in display of picture and picture quality. It was further stated that the LED TV, in question, did not start on many occasions and after some time it completely stopped working. As such, it is lying unusable. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, but they did not take any steps to sort out the problem. It was further stated that on two or three occasions the Engineers of opposite party No. 2, came to repair the LED TV, but due to inherent manufacturing defects, in the same, it could not be repaired. The e-mails sent to the opposite parties did not yield any result. It was further stated that when the complainant visited opposite party No. 1, for replacement of the said LED TV, it flatly refused to either replace the same or refund the bill amount. It was further stated that the complainant never enjoyed the said product for the purpose it was purchased despite spending money. It was further stated that the opposite parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed.
-
In its written reply, opposite party No. 1 admitted the sale of TV, in question. It was stated that the complaint was not maintainable, against the answering opposite party, because Mitashi Edutainment Private Limited, Mumbai (OP-2) was the manufacturer whereas, the answering OP used to sell the TV on behalf of the said manufacturer under warranty card. It was further stated that the complainant never contacted the answering OP. The complaint was made directly to opposite party No. 2, and its engineers attended the same during the warranty period of one year and satisfied him, who also signed the documents. It was further stated that the answering...
To continue reading
Request your trial