Joydev Dey filed a consumer case on 10 Feb 2017 against 1. L.G. Electronics India Pvt.Ltd. in the Kendujhar Consumer Court. The case no is 13/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Feb 2017.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 13 OF 2014
Joydev Dey, aged about 43 years,
S/o: Late K.R. Dey,
J 3RC-10, Joda East. Post:Joda,
Dist.: Kendujhar, Odisha-758034
Vrs.
1. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
A-Wing (3rd Floor), D-3, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017
2. Star Service,
Dala Chhak (Towards Sankha Chila Road)
Jajpur Road, Jajpur-755019
PRESENT: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT
SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)
Advocate for the Complainant: Self
Advocate for OP1: Subhendra Kumar Mohanty & Associates
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Date of Filing:02.04.2014 Date of Order: 10.02.2017
SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT
1. In brief, the complainant purchased one LG brand DVD, averred in the year 2005. The DVD set noticed some defect in the month of 2013.
2. On defect intimation, the service engineer attended the call and take the set to the authorized service station. The authorized service centre stationed at Jajpur Road is the franchise of LG Electronics for Kendujhar District.
3. The complainant also stated, the service engineer has charged Rs.300/- for the service rendered, but failed to deliver the rectified defect free DVD set. Being aggrieved lodged the case. Prayed, return of the DVD set and compensation for sustained harassment, mental agony & loss. Relied on Job sheet in photocopy.
4. On notice, out of the OPs, OP1 the manufacturer appeared and made the version in admission that the DVD player sold in the year 2005 and carries six months warranty on same product. The defect noticed in the year 2013 can’t be fastened as the DVD do not come under any warranty provision.
5. Further said, the product being an out of warranty complaint, service can only be provided on receipt of appropriate charges. In this case, the complainant did not prefer to pay the charge on account of service.
6. Also submitted as no consideration was tendered in hiring of service, the complaint is not a consumer. Thereby the complaint is not maintainable under the law.
7. The defect DVD set was perfectly rectified and post rectification, neither paid the service charge nor received the set. On observation, the minor defect such as “driver” costs of Rs.300/- but insisted not to pay anything and denied the sign Job card. And it is laughable that the DVD purchased on 2005. Claim sought on 2013 without any fees and warranty certificate/card is not worth of claim.
8. The claims are apparently false and not supported with scrap of papers and made to get unlawful money and not get back the DVD after repair. So in such a circumstance the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. Heard and perused the record at hand.
10. As the turn out in the fixed date on either of the parties is nil. So we prefer to decide the case U/s.13 and Sub-section (2) & (3A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
11. It is no more in dispute one LG DVD set was purchased but it is disputed that the LG DVD set did not carry any warranty on the date of claim.
12. On perusal of the record, the complainant has not produced any purchase receipt on the DVD set so also the warranty card/ certification. In absence of two documents no substantive information is inferred that complainant owned goods and warranty or guarantee is continuous.
13. The record reveals, in rectification of defect a sum of Rs.300/- has been collected, but no document is available to suffice that the collection is towards rendering service is justified.
14. The contentions and rebuttals are made fictitiously without basis if any document or legal justification.
15. Further, the job sheet and defects therein dated 22/3/2013 whereas the LG product was purchased in the year 2005 at the cost of Rs.2000/- only and prayer made to get relief amounting to Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand) which amply speak, the case was instituted in gaining of money and in sense of vindication.
In conclusion, we observe, the complaint as lodged is berefit of any evidential value as such does not based on merit and failure to present in proof of non-substantiation to cause as advanced, attracts dismissal being not an iota of truth. Thus we outright dismissed the case having no merit at all.
Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced, 10th February 2017.
I agree
(Smt. B. Giri) (Shri Purushottam Samantara)
Member (W) President
DCDRF, Keonjhar DCDRF, Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by me
(Shri Purushottam Samantara)
(President)
DCDRF, Keonjhar
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.