BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-08/2018
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Sujit Kumar Behera,aged about 45 years,
S/O- Lala Behera,
R/O- Arya Samaj Road,Pandit Laxmi Narayan Lane,
P.O/P.S/Dist-Sambalpur. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- Micromax India Pvt. Ltd,
The Micromax House,697,
Udyog Vihar,Phase-V,Gurgaon,
Pin-122022, Haryana, India
- The Micromax TV Service Centre,
(Formerly known as Unique Services),
Near Old ICICI Bank, LC Building Lane,
Budhraja, Sambalpur.768004(Odisha).
- The Snapdeal, Jasper Infotech,Pvt. Ltd,
246, 1st Floor,Phase-3,Okla Industrial area,
New Delhi-110020.……O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Self.
- For the O.P-1 :- None.
- For the O.P-2 :- None.
- For the O.P-3 :- None
DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 12.04.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has purchased a LED Full HD Television of Micromax make, model No-40B5000FHD on dtd.29.09.2015 from Snapdeal India vide invoice no- 6A69FC/15-1613641 dtd. 29.10.2015 for an amount of Rs21,999/-. The TV was delivered on dtd.06.10.2015 and was warranted for one year from the date of purchase. On the same the O.p-2 came for installation of the TV set and informed the Complainant about the 1+2 year extended warranty on LED TV and also he is eligible for the same. On dt. 30.11.2015 the Complainant received a message on his mobile phone about the registration of extension of warranty vide no-SCH07-15-11-12364 subject to availability of original invoice. On dtd. 28.06.2017 the display panel of the Tv stopeed working, half potion turned black with no picture display. Being informed the O.p-2 sent a service personnel who suggested to replace the TV as it was not reparable and under extended warranty period. On dtd. 08.07.2017 he took the TV and remote with him to replace it and delivered a new one by dtd. 25.07.2017. But the O.P-2 provided the Complainant with a used small TV of 20 inches of Lloyd Company without remove to bridge the gap up to arrangement of new TV. But till the date they have neither given a new TV nor took the old one. The Complainant has made contact with the Customer care centre but he assured him to resolve the problem very soon. A email have been sent to him regarding this matter on dtd. 08.07.2017, 18.09.2017 and 26.10.2017. Thereafter the Complainant on dtd.10.11.2017 wrote a letter to the O.P-1 to replace the TV or refund him the Price of the TV within 10 days but in vain. Again he wrote letters to the O.P-2 & 3 to resolve the problem but no result came out. Due to this callousness of the O.ps the Complainant has sustained financial loss, mental pain and agony for which he prays for certain relief.
The O.P-1,2 & 3, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1,2 & 3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new LED Full HD Television Micromax make, model No-40B5000FHD on dtd.29.09.2015 from Snapdeal India vide invoice no- 6A69FC/15-1613641 dtd. 29.10.2015 for an amount of Rs21,999/-treated as the consideration amount. It is the O.Ps to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said TV after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P-2, he could not get it repaired being the Authorised service centre and unable to provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the TV was within warranty period. The O.P-2 has taken the TV deceitfully with an assurance to replace the defective TV with a new one and provided a TV of other model of less value and size. But OPs were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective TV to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.” decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7th September, 2017.Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective LED Full HD Television of Micromax make, model No-40B5000FHD and provide him a brand new Defect free TV of same make and model or refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.21,999/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 29.01.2018 till its realisation." The O.Ps are further jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand)as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 12th day of April-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
.
