West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/113

Inderchand Anchalia, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Star Servicing Centre, Auth.Ser. Ce.of Haier Al - Opp.Party(s)

M. Bandopadhyay

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

One Inderchand Anchalia filed a complaint. The complaint, in short, is that the complainant purchased DAIKIN 1.52* SAC FTE50L and Haier 19inches HD LED (T.V. Set) on 06.03.2013 from Venus Engineering Company. The T.V set started to create problems after a few months from the date of purchase. The complainant informed Venus Engineering Co. i.e. O.P No.3 over telephone. O.P No.3 advised the complainant to contact with the Haier Servicing Centre at Bolpur for the said technical problems. The complainant informed Haier Servicing Centre name and style Start Servicing Centre at Bolpur (O.P No.1). O.P No.1 took the T.V Set for repairing purpose but was unable to repair the same and advised to inform the Company. The complainant filed complaint several times before the Company in the toll free number and sent e.mail to Haier Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. but there is no effective reply from the Company. So, the case is.

O.P No.1 Star Servicing Centre Bolpur did not appear inspite of receiving notice from the Forum. The case has been heard ex parte against him. O.P No.3 has been expunged vide order No. 10 dated 25.08.2015.

O.P No.2 appeared after receiving the notice and contested the case by filing written version. He stated in written version that the complainant has no surviving grievance against him. The complainant made complaint regarding the issue of menu chart coming automatically on display panel. The complaint was duly and without any delay was attended by O.P No.1. The problem was rectified on the same day. Thereafter the complainant again made certain complaints regarding the said goods. The technician replaced and repaired the parts. But the complainant was not satisfied after much efforts. So, the O.P took the said goods at workshop and observed for 7days. However, they did not find any defect in the same. Therefore, O.P No.2 had never deficiency in service.

Complainant filed certain copies of documents in support of his complaint. Ld. Advocates of both parties orally argued and filed written arguments.

Upon pleading of the parties following points are to be discussed.

POINTS

1. Whether the O.Ps have deficiency in service or not?
2. Is the complainant entitled to relief/s as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

All the points being interlinked with each other are taken up together for discussion.

Admitted fact is that the complainant Inderchand Anchalia purchased a Haier 19 inches HD LED T.V Set from O.P No.3 on 06.03.2013 and after a few months the T.V Set started to create technical problems within warrantee period. The complainant informed O.P No.3. O.P No.1being authorized service center of O.P No.2 attended for repairing the problems regarding the issue of menu chart coming automatically on display panel. According to O.P No.1 it was internal cross connection between sensors. The same was rectified on that day. But the complainant claimed that O.P No.1 was unable to repair the problem and advised the complainant to inform O.P No.2 for the said problem. The complainant lodged complaint several times before O.P No.2 in their toll free number. From 08.08.2013 to 28.02.2014 complainant had lodged complaints 11 times. O.P No.2 admitted thrice the complaint and sent technician. O.P No.2 stated in his written version that the technician had been sent against complaint No. KOL1309180098 dated 18.09.2013. The technician attended and replaced integration main board for hazy picture and erratic behavior in the said goods. After receiving complaint No. KOL310180155 dated 18.10.2013 O.P No.2 further sent technician who found no error. However, on continuous request of the complainant the technician further replaced the main board. The complainant again reported the same problem being complaint No. KOL 311130159 dated 13.11.2013. This time the technician replaced some parts of the LED. The technician suggested that LED was working in perfect working condition and giving the desired results.

Inspite of that the complainant lodged complaint being No. KOL1401020120. As per W.V. the O.P took the T.V set at workshop and observed for 7days. O.P did not find any defect in the said T.V.

From the above discussion it is true that the T.V set was technically defective and the O.P tried to repair it by replacing the main board and parts in different times. O.P No.2 admitted that there was a problem of hazy picture and erratic behavior in the T.V Set. But he claimed that the technician made replacement and repair just for the sake of good gesture towards the complainant. In support of his claim O.P did not file a single piece of documents like technician’s servicing report or servicing certificate from the complainant, that means, the complainant was not satisfied with the service of the T.V set from the very date of purchase.

Why a consumer repeatedly lodges complaint if the said goods gives better service? Why the T.V set requires to change main board and parts for hazy picture and erratic behavior? There are so many questions about the service of the O.Ps. O.P No.2 neither produced any document in respect of providing service against the complaints field by the complainant nor examined any witness. Only statement in written version does not prove that the said T.V set has no defect and working in perfect condition and giving the desired result, where the O.P himself admitted the defect twice in his statement. First time he admitted the issue of menu chart coming automatically on display panel and in second time hazy picture and erratic behavior on the said T.V Set.

The Forum thinks that T.V set in question is a defective one and does not provide proper service since the date of purchase of the T.V. set. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaints repeatedly. The problem could be removed by changing T.V set with a new one. The O.P has not done it. This is his deficiency in service.

Deficiency in service of O.P No.2 has been proved. The complainant is entitled to get a new T.V Set by replacing the T.V set in question.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 113/2014 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against O.P No.2 and ex parte against O.P No.1.

The O.P No. 2 is directed to give a new 19inches HD LED T.V Set in exchange of the T.V set in question within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.