The moratorium under insolvency law postpones enforcement of claims but does not extinguish them, ensuring consumer rights are not hindered.

1. Heard Ms. Reena Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner and Preet Kamal Singh, contesting respondent-1, in person, through video conferencing and examined the written submission filed by them and the record of the case.

2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 16.12.2019, passed in Appeal No. 130 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 02.05.2019, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 544 of 2018), whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, has allowed the complaint and directed M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. to pay an amount of Rs.33,014/- as the costs of DDB LED, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 7,000/ as cost of litigation to the complainant, within a period of 30 days and the appeal of M/S Videocon Industries limited, filed from the aforesaid order, has been dismissed.

3. Preet Kamal Singh (respondent-1) filed Consumer Complaint No. 544 of 2018, against Videocon Industries Limited, Videocon d2h Limited and Pinky Electronics, for refund of Rs.33014/- as the price of DDB LED along with interest @ 19% p.a. from the date of its sale i.e. 23.10.2014 till its refund, Rs. 20,000/-, for his physical and mental harassment and Rs. 30,000/- as the cost of litigation. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased an electronic product of Videocon Industries Ltd., i.e. DDB LED with serial No. 110914780148007641, on 23.10.2014, for Rs.33014/- vide invoice No. 16728, from Pinky Electronics (opposite party-3), who was its authorised dealer. The product was under a warrantee for a period of 5 years. From the date of its purchase, the LED started problems in its function, due to various manufacturing defects in it and stopped working within a short period. On the complaints made in this respect, the Engineers of the company repeatedly visited the residence of the complainant and tried to set right the defects but of no result. Firstly it was found that internal set top box of LED was defective and internal set top box was replaced within a month of its purchase. But there was defect in external set top box also, which was not replaced, in spite of several complaints made in this respect. Two times its speaker went out of order. Its buttons also went out of order. Its smart card was replaced. LED was suffering from manufacturing defects from the date of its purchase. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

4. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and Videocon d2h Ltd. contested the case and filed their reply. It has been stated that Videocon d2h Ltd. was a separate entity and had no concern with DDB LED purchased by the complainant. It has been admitted that M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. was manufacturer and Pinky Electronics was its dealer, of DDB LED purchased by the complainant. It has been stated that the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended by the qualified Engineers of the company as and when it were made. Since the product was within the warrantee period as such the company was bound to repair it, free of costs. As such, when the complaint was made, LED was repaired free of costs and was functioning smoothly. There was no deficiency of service or manufacturing defect. The complainant malafide filed this complaint with an intention to replace the LED with a new product.

5. It may be mentioned that during pendency of the proceeding before District Forum, the company offered the complainant to replace with a new LED of recent model, on 14.03.2019, but the offer was refused by the complainant on the ground that he had already purchased a new LED. Then the company proposed to refund the price of LED to