DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 38 OF 2019
DATE OF FILING: 05.03.2019 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25.9.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
Member : Jagadish Ch. Barman
COMPLAINANT : Malabika Roy, wife of Sanjib Bhandary, of N-3, 2nd floor, New Town, Hospital Quarter, Diamond Harbour Hospital, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Prop. Of Khosla Electronics Pvt Ltd. Dealer shop at Amtala, Diamond Harbour Road, South 24-Parganas, Pin-743398.
2. Prop. Of TekCare India Pvt. Ltd. (Authorised Service Centre) at 83, Linton Street, Kolkata-14.
3. Prop. Of TekCare India Pvt. Ltd. (Authorised Service Centre) at Noda Khali, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743377.
4. TekCare India Pvt. Ltd. (Manufacturer office of vedeocon), at 15 km stone, Aurangabad Paithan Road, Vill. Chitegaon, Taluka Paithan, Aurangbad-431005, Maharashthra, India.
5. Videocon Industries Limited.
Block- B.P. ,Salt Lake City, Sector-5, Kolkata- 700091.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
The nub of the facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant runs as follows.
The complainant purchased one Videocon TV on 27.3.2015 from O.P-1 for a consideration price of Rs.51,900/- with warranty of 4 years. After expiry of 20 months, the TV went dead. On 19.12.2016, he i.e. the complainant informed the authorized service center i.e. O.P nos. 3 and 4 of the defect of the TV. A technician was also sent to the house of the complainant, but this technician failed to repair the TV. According to the version of the technician, the power section of the TV was found damaged. He demanded Rs.1725/- as service charge and the said charge was also paid to him by the complainant. In spite of payment of the above service charge, the technician could not repair the TV and thenceforth no response whatsoever was also received from the service centers. The complainant has now come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case, praying for replacement of the TV or, in the alternative, for refund of the consideration money and payment of compensation. Hence, this case.
O.P-1 has been contesting the case by filing written version, wherein it is stated inter alia that he sold the TV to the complainant and he has no obligation whatsoever to provide repair service to the complainant. O.P nos. 2 to 4 are authorized service centers of the manufacturing company and it is they who are responsible for repair of the TV. There is no deficiency in service on his part and the instant case is, therefore, not maintainable against him.
O.P nos. 2 to 4 have not turned up to contest the case in spite of service of notice upon them and, therefore, the case proceeds ex-parte against them.
O.P-5 i.e. the manufacturing company has filed written version of his statement, wherein it is stated that the TV was in good service for long 20 months as it is reflected from the averment of the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the TV. All call duties were attended by the service centers and the grievance of the complainant were dully redressed. Replacement of the TV is not possible as because the TV is a repairable one. They are always ready and willing to provide repair service in terms of the warranty policy.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the O.P.s guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence of the parties, vide her petition dated 04.07.2019. O.P. no. 2 to 5 do not file any evidence. O.P. no. 1 files BNA and the same is kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 and 2 :
Already heard the submission of Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant. Perused the petition of complaint and W/V and also the documents filed on record. Considered all these.
The only allegation leveled against the O.P.s by the complainant is that the TV purchased by her from O.P. no. 1 went defective after expiry of 20 months from its purchase date and that the O.P.s did not take any step for repair of the TV in spite of intimation given to them within the period of warranty. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a TV of Videocon Make from O.P. no. 1 and the manufacturing company i.e. O.P. no. 5 provided 4 years’ warranty to the complainant on the purchase of the TV According to the version of the complainant, the said TV went out of gear after expiry of 20 months. The complainant has filed on record “a cash receipt” dated 21.12.2016 and this cash receipt is granted by one technical person of service center of O.P. no. 5. There is an entry of the technician to the effect “power problem” on the cash receipt. It is also mentioned on the said cash receipt that 3 years’ extended warranty have been given on the TV of the complainant. That apart, the cash receipt shows that the said technician has also accepted Rs. 1,725/- from the complainant as service charge. This document also goes a long way to prove that the TV of the complainant was under a coverage of 4 years warranty from the date of its purchase i.e. 27.03.2015. The TV went defective in the year 2016 and the technician attended the TV on 21.12.2016. So, it is crystal clear that the TV went defective within the warranty period and the service centers i.e. O.P. no. 2 to 4 should have provided repair service to the complainant without taking any cost from her. But, they have not provided the said service to the complainant and since 2016 till now the TV has not been functioning. The complainant has been deprived of all the facilities and benefits of the TV, entailing a lot of mental agony. Negligence on the part of the O.P.s to provide repair service to the TV of the complainant in terms of the warranty agreement is nothing but deficiency in service on their part and for this deficiency in service, the complainant has certainly sustained harassment and mental agony. She i.e. the complainant is therefore entitled to get compensation and the order is passed accordingly as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
Amended Vidt Order-13
dated 7/11/2019
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P. nos. 2, 3 and 4 & 5 and ex-parte against O.P. no. 1 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
All the O.P.s are directed to repair the TV of the complainant free of cost within a month of this order failing which they will return the entire consideration price i.e. Rs. 51,900/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. till full realization thereof. No compensation whatsoever is granted to the complainant as the O.P.s are directed to refund the entire consideration money with rate of interest higher than the prevailing market rate.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree Member Member President
Directed and corrected by me
President
