MADHU DAYAL Vs. GOLDLINE ELECTRONICS & 2 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No.387/2014 Madhu Dayal Vs. M/s. Goldline Electronics & Ors. by which, appeal filed the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner purchased Samsung LED TV from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- on 5.9.2009. In August/September, 2013, TV stopped working and on an intimation by complainant OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2's authorized person visited house of complainant and intimated that panel of TV has become defective which requires replacement. Vide e-mail dated 16.10.2013, OP expressed inability to replace, as same was not available and offered refund of 34% of the price after deducting 66% depreciation. Non-availability of parts was on account of ulterior motive to force consumers to purchase new expensive products. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. OP No. 2 & 3 resisted complaint and submitted that first complaint was lodged after 4 years of purchase. It was further submitted that as product was old and spare part of TV was not available, complainant was offered 34% depreciated value. Denying any deficiency on their part prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OPs to refund 34% of Rs.1,10,000/- along with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and cost of litigation Rs. 7,000/-. Appeal filed by complainant for enhancement was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.