BEFORE THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-     

C.D.CASE NO. 261/ 2018

Dillip Kumar Pattnaik, aged about 35 years,

S/o : Late Purusottam Pattnaik Resident of Plot No.G/50,

Mail Colony, Unit – 3, Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda

                                                                             ….     Complainant

          -Vrs.-

1. The Manager, Great Eastern Appliances Pvt.Ltd.,

Authorized Dealer of Videocon LED,

22 & 22B, Bapuji Nagar, Janpath,

Bhubaneswar – 751009, Dist – Khurda.

2. The Managing Director,

Videocon Industries Corporate Office/ Head

Office Address: Fort house, 2^nd Floor, 221,

Dr.DN Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 (India)

                                                          ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant      …                Mihir Sahoo & Associates       

For the OPs                             …               Exparte

Date of filing : 23/10/2018

Date of Disposal : 30/10/2019

ORDER

MR.B.R.SWAIN, MEMBER :

1.       The case has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986  with a  prayer to direct the OP No.1 to replace the defective LED TV with a new one of same features, or to refund the cost of the LED TV amounting to Rs.30,000/- to the complainant,   pay compensation for mental agony  and cost of litigation.

2.         The brief fact of the case is that the complainant, on 8/4/2017,  had purchased a  Videocon  LED TV bearing  Model No.VNF 43FH-11FA-43”  from the OP.1  on payment of Rs.30,000/- vide annexure – 1 on installment basis and  has cleared all the installment dues in time. The said LED TV  was having warranty period of 12 months from the date of its purchase. After 6-7 months from the purchase, i.e. within the warranty period the said  LED TV started experiencing problem which the complainant  brought to the notice of the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 assured that the authorized technician of the OP No.2 Company would come and repair the same. But after several request made by the complainant through telephone as well as personal visit to the OP No.1, no one had turned up to repair the said TV. So finding no other alternative on dated 24/09/2018 the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP No.1 through his counsel by registered post vide Annexure – 2 requesting therein to return the purchased amount of the said LED TV to the complainant. But even after receiving the legal notice,  the OP No.1 kept silent over the matter.  Hence aggrieved by this alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs,  the case is filed with a prayer  as stated at Para -1 above.     

3.       Upon notice, the OPs  did not appear and file their written version to contest the case. Hence they have been  set exparte and exparte hearing was taken up.

4.       During the course of hearing of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted  that,  at the time of purchase of the said Videocon LED TV, the dealer i.e. the OP.1 had assured the complainant to provide all the after-sales service. So the complaint had made the complaint regarding the problem in the said TV set before the OP.1 But despite of several approaches, though the OP No.1 assured the complainant  but did not take any step for repairing of the TV set. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was well within the knowledge of the OPs that the warranty was for a period of one year, so the approach of the OPs shows to evade from the liability to repair the TV set within the warranty period. 

5.       On verification of the documents available on record, we find that the complainant has not furnished a single document in support of his claim regarding any problem in the said LED TV in question within the warranty period  and  for which he has approached the OP No.1 for repair of the TV set as averred in his complaint petition. Regarding the OP No.2, we do not find any deficiency in service on his part, as he has no knowledge about the grievance of the complainant. As such, there is no allegation  against the OP No.2 by the complainant. However,  on receipt of the legal notice issued by the complainant’s advocate, the OP No.1 did not respond and remained silent over the matter, which in our opinion, amounts to deficiency in service by the OP No.1. The OP No.1 has also  not contested the case and remained  absent so as to enable us to ascertain why he did not give any reply to the legal notice. So relying on the material facts averred in the complaint petition in shape of affidavit which remained un-challenged and uncontroverted as the OPs took no step to contest the case, we are of the considered view that the  ends of justice would suffice if direction is given to the OP No.1 to make necessary arrangement for repairing the LED TV in question. Hence it is ordered that:-      

ORDER

The complaint is hereby allowed  exparte against the OPs  with cost. The  OP No.1 is hereby directed  to  repair  the Videocon LED TV set  bearing Model No. “VNF 43FH-11FA-43”    at free of cost. The  OP No.1 shall also pay to the complainant  Rs.3000/-  towards cost of  litigation.  The order is to be complied with by the OP No.1  within a period of one month from the date of communication, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the same against the OP No.1 in accordance with law.

 The order is pronounced on this day the  30^th October,  2019  under the seal & signature of the  President and Members of the Forum.

                                                                               (B.R.SWAIN)

                                                                                 MEMBER 

Dictated & corrected by me

           Member

I agree                                                                      I agree    

(MISS K.NAYAK)                                                     (SRI P.C.MISHRA)

Member (W)                                                              President        

Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :