DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

             C.C. CASE NO. 369_ OF ___2015

DATE OF FILING : 13.8..2015               DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:22.02.2018

Present                      :   President       :    

                                        Member(s)    :     Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad                                                   

COMPLAINANT              :                Mr. Tapas Kumar Majumder, at narendrapur Station Road, Kadarat, P.O Ram Krishna Pally, P.S Sonarpur, Dist.-700150. South 24-Parganas.

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         :   1. Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. of 200, N.S Road, (Narendrapur, P.S Sonarpur, Kolkata – 103 ,registered office at 15B, Sarat Bose Road, P.S Bhawanipore, Kolkata – 20.

                                            2.    Samsung India Electronics Ltd. 10, AOC, Ganguly Sarani, Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani, Kolkata – 20.

___________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member

     This is a case arising out of a complaint lodged under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

     The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

     The complainant purchased a Samsung L.E.D Television being Model no.VA 32F5100 from the O.P-1 i.e Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. on 7.9.2013 for a consideration price of Rs.33,500/-. The said TV carried warranty of one year from the date of purchase and it was extended later for another one year and thus the total warranty period was two years from the date of purchase. The said TV went out of order. It displayed no picture causing annoyance to the complainant and the members of his family. Complainant lodged a complaint with the O.P-2 i.e the manufacturing company of the TV. The representative of the manufacturing company came to the house of the complainant on 9.3.2015 for the purpose of servicing. He took a payment of Rs.674/- for inspection of the TV from the complainant and submitted a bill with estimated cost of Rs.17892/- for repair on 9.32015. The complainant did not pay this amount of Rs.17,892/-.  Now the complainant has filed the instant complaint ,praying for issuing a direction to the O.Ps for replacement of the TV by a new one of the same model or different model or for refund of Rs.33,500/- with interest, payment of Rs.50,000/- as cost and Rs.674/- which the representative of the O.P-2 has received from him and Rs.4 lacs as compensation.  Hence, this case.

     The O.P-2 has not been contesting the case and ,therefore, the case is heard exparte against him.

     The O.P-1, who has filed written version in this case , admitted therein the purchase of the TV by the complainant from him for a consideration price of Rs.33,500/-. The positive case of O.P-1 is that he is the dealer of the TV and O.P-2 is the manufacturing company. According to him,  it is the manufacturing company who is responsible for any defect in the TV and the dealer is in no way responsible for the defect of the TV. So, to him the complaint should be dismissed in limini with cost against him.

     Upon the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are formulated for effective adjudication of the dispute at hand.

ISSUES

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in Law?
2. Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?

Evidence of the Parties :-

     Affidavits in chief are filed by both the complainant and the O.P-1. BNAs have also been filed by the complainant and the O.P-1, which are kept in the record.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1  :

     This issue has not figured at all in the argument canvassed by the Ld. Lawyers appearing for both the parties. On perusal of the complaint, written version and the brief notes of arguments filed on behalf of the parties, it appears that the complainant is a consumer and that the case is, therefore, quite maintainable against the O.Ps in law and in its present form. Hence, this issue goes primarily answered against the O.Ps.

Point nos. 2 and 3 :-

     Now to see whether the O.Ps are guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant in the petition of complaint. It is undisputed fact that the Technician of O.P-2 visited the house of the complainant on 9.3.2015 to find out the defect of the subject TV and after inspection of the TV ,he submitted an estimate letter ,whereby he charged the complainant to pay Rs.17,892/- as the price of Panel and SMPS. This estimate letter ( Original )is kept in the record and it reveals that the O.P-2 has charged Rs.17892/-from the complainant and this prices includes Rs.11,245/- as the price of Panel and Rs.3792/-as the price of SMPS.

     Be that as it may, this estimate letter  makes one thing clear and the thing is that the panel and SMPS went defective, for which the subject TV did not function. This defect occurs during the warranty period. The warranty period was for two years from the date of purchase and it is manifested from the warranty card which is also kept in the record. During warranty period the O.P-2 should not have charged the complainant with any kind of payment for any defective parts. But O.P-2 has done this thing and by doing this thing he has undoubtedly committed the deficiency in service .  He will have to supply the defective parts and will have to put the TV in functional order.

     It is contended on behalf of the O.P-1 i.e  the authorized dealer that the authorized dealer is not liable for any defect in the TV and that it is only the O.P-2 who will be liable for any such defect of the TV. This contention seems to be not acceptable in the given facts and circumstances of the case. There is no evidence nor any averment given by the O.P-1 to the effect that  the O.P-2 i.e the company realized total price of the TV from O.P-1 when the delivery of TV was made to him. If the price is not realized by the company from the authorized dealer during the delivery of the goods, the relationship of principal and agent subsists and in that case the principal and the agent both will be liable for any defect of the TV and this ratio is pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council II (1994)C PJ 21 (SC) .

     The Point nos. 2 and 3  are thus answered in favour of the complainant .

     In the result,  the case succeeds.

     Hence,

                                                            ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P-1 and exparte against the O.P-2  with a cost of Rs.2000/- .

Both the O.Ps, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to supply the defective parts i.e Panel and SMPS , or any other parts if required , free of cost and free from defect and to make the TV fully functional  and also to give fresh warranty for a period of six months from the date of repair, within a month of this order failing which , the O.Ps will return the entire consideration money i.e Rs.33,500/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2000/- as referred to above.  

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no compensation is awarded.  

                          Member                                          Member

 Dictated and corrected by me