Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/28/2020

Prop. Shudhansu Sekhar Padhee - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-Patra Electronics Sambalpur. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 28/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Prop. Shudhansu Sekhar Padhee

M/S Bhubaneswari Event Management Group

Adarsh Marg, Hirakud Colony, Sambalpur

768001                                                                          ………..Complainant

                                                          Versus

1. Patra Electronics Sambalpur.

          Ainthapali, Budharaja, Sambalpur-768004.

2. Soni Indian Pvt. Ltd.

          Registered Office:-A-18,

          Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

           Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

3. Royal Services, Authorized Service Center,

           Soni India Private Ltd., Khata No. 142,

 Plot No.510/3086. Charbhati Chhak,

          Sambalpur-768001.                                             …………Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :- Self
2. For the O.P.1, 2& 3         :- Sri. S.Mahapatra, Advocate & Associates

 

Date Of Filing :20.10.2020,Date Of Hearing :30.08.2022, Date Of Judgement : 11.10.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.        

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant case is that the Complainant filed the case is about deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps for supplying the bad qualities products to the Complainant. On dtd. 23.05.2020 the Complainant purchased a Sony LED KD 55x8000G TV vide Sl No. 8015235 from O.P No. 1 amounting of Rs. 79,000/- against Bill No. SMB-S0000455. The said TV was delivered by the O.P No. 1 to the Complainant office with assurance that the said TV to be installed within 12 hours to 18 hours by the technical person of O.P No. 2 & 3. After several telephonic calls to the O.Ps for installation the new TV set from 24.05.2020 to 26.05.2020, the O.Ps did not respond the Complainants telephonic call. On 27.05.2020 the O.P No. 3 open the seal packed and installed the said product in the Complainant’s office. On 03.06 2020 the Complainant lodged a complaint to the O.P No. 1 & 2 regarding the TV which lower part is bending. The O.P No. 1 & 2 selling the defective LED TV to the Complainant. After receipt of complaint, the technical person came and verified the defective Sony TV set and the technical person said to the Complainant that the said defect is not repairable, the defect is manufacturing defect and the said item may be replaced by the company, O.P No. 2. After several telephonic interaction and letter communication through the mail to O.P No. 3 then the O.P 2 & 3 agreed to replace the defective parts of the said TV set. On dtd. 09.09.2020, the O.P No. 2 send a mail mentioned that a sum of Rs. 3,630/- is required to replace the said item within the warranty period. It clearly indicates that the O.Ps were cheating to the Complainant and selling the defective goods with OK quality testing certificate by the company. The O.Ps No 2 & 3 have not replaced the TV till the date of filling of the case.
2. The Written version of the O.P No. 1 is that the O.P No. 1 is a dealer of various electronics companies and the Complainant had brought a Sony TV Model KD-55X1800G. The grievances of the Complainant is that on 3^rd June 2020 the Complainant found that lower part of TV is bending. After receiving of complaint the O.P No. 2 & 3 had send technical person. But the issue of the Complainant couldn’t be resolved by O.P No. 2 & 3. The O.P No. 1 is a dealer only and the O.P No. 1 has no role to play for the grievance raised since grievance of the Complainant can only be resolved from this complaint case, since grievance of the Complainant can only be redressed by O.P No. 2 & 3.. He is neither the manufacturer nor after sale service provider. Hence, the Complainant case is not maintainable as against the O.P No.1 as such the same is liable to be dropped on that score alone.
3. The Written version of the others O.Ps is that as per the records of the company the Complainant purchased one Sony TV Model KD-55X1800G having Sl No. 8015235 on 23.05.2020 for Rs. 79,000/- after a detailed demonstration of the features and functions along with the detailed explanation of all the warranty terms and conditions of the aforesaid TV. After purchasing the said TV, the Complainant for the very first time contacted the service center on 06.06.2020 raising an issue of in the said TV. The service center without any delay gave the Home Service to the Complainant and inspected the said TV. Upon Inspection it was observed that there was a bent at the bottom of the TV. It was further observed that the cause of the said condition of the TV was not good and the TV was in a damaged condition. The service engineer of the service center properly inspected the TV set and it was clearly observed by the service center that the cause of damage was external in nature or can say due to the negligence of the Complainant. Due to the damage condition of the TV the warranty stands void as per warranty policy. Due to the Complainant’s induced damage condition of the TV set the warranty stood void as per the warranty policy. Therefore, the service center shared an estimated cost of Rs. 3,630/- towards the replacement of Rear & Cabinet. But considering the Complainant to be a valuable customer the service center replaced the necessary parts and that too free of cost. The O.Ps cannot be held liable as the TV got damaged due to the Complainant’s negligence. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. From the above it is found that from the beginning the O.Ps had sold the defective TV with OK quality testing certificate by the company to the Complainant and the defect cannot be removed or replaced. So it is a case of unfair trade practice, harassment and deficiency in service by the O.P No. 2 & 3 resulting into unnecessary and unjustifiable financial loss to the Complainant.
103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

 

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant has purchased a Sony LED KD 55*8000G TV vide Sl No. 8015235 from O.P No. 1 amounting of Rs. 79,000/- against Bill No. SMB-S0000455, the O.P No. 2 is the manufacturing company and the O.P No. 3 is the authorized service center. Hence the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service in part of O.Ps?

The O.Ps had sold the defective TV with OK quality testing certificate by the company to the Complainant and the defect cannot be removed or replaced from the beginning.  From the version, submission and documents of the parties it is found that the O.Ps No. 2 & 3 are deficient in their service where as the O.P No. 1 is the retailer. So the O.P No.1 has no deficiency in service.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From all the facts of the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs what he claimed in his complaint petition from the O.P No. 2 & 3.

                             ORDER

The case is allowed on merit. The O.P No. 2 & 3 are directed to return back a Sony TV of same specification or to Pay Rs. 79,000/- toward cost of the TV to the Complainant. the O.P is also directed to Rs. 30,000/- towards unfair trade practice, harassment ,deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 11^th day of Oct, 2022.

                   Supply free copies of this order to the parties.

                I agree,

 

                                                                                               

 (Dr. R.K.Satapathy)                                                                                 (Shri. S.N.Tripathy)    

                 PRESIDENT                                                                                     MEMBER                                                                                     

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

 

                                                               (Shri. S.N.Tripathy)          

                                                                 MEMBER