PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 81/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Mrs. Urmila Sahu,

W/O-Prahallad Kumar Sahu,

R/O-Gujurati Colony, PS-Town,

PO/Dist-Sambalpur-768001.                                                ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. M/S Dash Enterprises,

Near Jagannath Temple, Main Road,

Budharaja, Sambalpur-768004.

2. MS Service, At-Ainthapali, Adarsh Marg,

PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

3. MI Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Limited.

Building Orchid, Block-E, Embassy Tech Village,

Marathahalli Outer Ring Road,

Devarabisanahalli, Bengaluru-560103.

4. Zopper, Solvy Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

H-211, Sector-63, Noida, UP-201301, U.P.…..……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. P.K. Sahu, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1 & 2        :-       None
3. For the O.P. No.3                           :-       Sri. S.K. Mishra, Adv.
4. For the O.P. No.4                           :-       Sri. S. Gardia, Adv.

Date of Filing:28.10.2023,  Date of Hearing :26.06.2023  Date of Judgement : 31.07.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased a 40 inch MI LED TV from the OP No. 1 on dtd. 26.01.2021 on payment of 19,999/- which covered manufacturing warranty for one year. Before completion of the manufacturing warranty period, the Complainant has taken extended warranty of further period of one year from the OP No. 4 which was started from 27^th January 2022 to till 26^th January 2023 on payment of a sum of Rs. 499.00. The aforesaid TV was functioning well till 28^th June 2022, but the said TV gave problem in the display panel and for which the Complainant has informed the authorised service center i.e. the OP No. 2 who sent their engineer to rectify the problem and the engineer has replaced the display panel of the aforesaid TV on 28^th June 2022. But again the said problem persisted and the Complainant has lodged a complaint for the second time on 29^th June 2022 to the OP No. 2 and the engineer of the OP NO. 2 came and changed the display panel for the second time but the TV not functioned and the problem not resolved. The Complainant has raised a complaint on 19^th August 2022 before the OP NO. 1 and the OP No. 2 who again assured the Complainant to resolve her issue within 7 days by replacing a new LED TV in place of the defective TV. The Complainant has requested several times to the OP NO. 1 & 2 but in vain. So finding no other way, the Complainant served an advocate notice on 13^th September 2022 to all the four OPs but no action was taken to resolve the issue.
2. The O.P. No.1 & 2 not filed their version. The Version of the OP No. 4 is that prior to completion of the one year warranty provided by the OP No. 3, the Complainant had taken an extended warranty for further period of one year. The Complainant reported the issue on 28.06.2022 and again on 09.08.2022 which was resolved. The Complainant again reported an issue with the display panel of the said TV to the OP No. 1 and OP NO. 2 on 19.08.2022. The OP No. 4 was never informed of any such issue by the Complainant. As per the information shared by the OP No. 3, the said TV was replaced by OP No. 3 on 31.10.20223. The Complainant still proceeded to file the present Complaint before the learned. Commission for the replacement of the defective TV. The present complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be rejected as no cause of action is remained in the present complaint as the OP No. 3 has already swapped the complete device, therefore no cause of action arises in the present case.
3. After perusing the documents, evidences and case record, it is found that the said TV was replaced by OP No. 3 on 31.10.20223 after one year of filing of the case. The O.P. not explained why delay was made. So deficiency of service found against the OP NO. 3 who is the manufacturer of the alleged TV. 

                                                                                          ORDER

The O.P No. 3 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation of the losses and deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization. Further if the said TV is not replaced by the OP NO. 3 then the OP NO. 3 is directed to replace the TV within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 31^st day of July, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.