STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 06.04.2024 Reserved on : 07.11.2024 Date of Decision : 22.11.2024 Yamaha Music India Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the provisions of erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 (as amended till date) having its Office at : P-401, JMD Megapolis, Sector – 48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122018 through its Authorized Representative Mr. Naval Kishor Rustagi ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Karanvir Singh Son of Sukhdev Singh, R/o New Teacher Colony, Peera Wali Gali, Nawanshahr, at Present : C/o Tehsildar Office, Reader Office, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar .…Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Sagar Enterprises, Available at : Plot No. 33-34, Preet Complex, Near Shoe Market, Ghanta Ghar, Ludhiana, Yamaha Company Sound Bar Service Center, Ludhiana, Phone – 0161 –

2740186 .…Respondent No.2/OP No.2 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Nawanshahar.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Rohit Mittal, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Karanvir Singh, in person For respondent No.2 : None VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Yamaha Music India Pvt. Ltd., has filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Representative to challenge the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Nawanshahar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Karanvir Singh had been allowed

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had purchased music system, namely, ‘Yamaha YAS-209 Soundbar’ through online portal ‘Amazon’ on 22.12.2022 against consideration of Rs.32,990/-. One year warranty was provided by the Company on the same. As the product supplied by the Company was found to be cracked, therefore, he lodged the Complaint with the Customer Care of the Company, who replaced the same. After receiving the new piece, it was noticed after sometime that the said music system was not upto mark as time and again the problem had been persisted. He had lodged the Complaint on the Company portal but the OPs had failed to remove the defects. Even on approaching Service Centre of the Company at Ludhiana, they had failed to remove the defects and made false promises. It was alleged that the OPs had supplied the defective Soundbar and had failed to rectify the defects of the same inspite of repeated efforts. Due to said act of the OPs, the Complainant had suffered a lot physically, mentally as well as financially, therefore, the OPs were liable to refund the price of the Soundbar.

4. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to refund the price of the Soundbar i.e. Rs.32,990/-, Rs.20,000/- as spent on transportation for visiting time and again to the Service Centre of the Company and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for suffering harassment and mental agony at the hands of the OPs.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, despite service, none had appeared from the side of OP No.2, hence, the OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2023.

6. OP No.1 (Appellant) had appeared and filed its