F I N A L   O R D E R

The fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a D2H HD Box (New Connection) being Model No.DSK590 manufactured by Videocon for a consideration amount of Rs.1600/- from the Opposite Party who installed the same in the complainant’s house on the same date of purchase i.e., 04.04.2017.

He further submitted that on 23.04.2017, the signal of the HD Box became off due to the occurrence of thunder storm (Kalbaisakhi). After lodging a complaint, a complaint number was sent to the mobile number of complainant, which has been erased duly and the complainant was assured by the O.P. stating that within 24 hours the problem would be solved.

As the O.P. did not take any step, on 29.04.2017 the complainant again visited to the office of O.P and assured that within next 24 hours the expert/service technician of the O.P. would visit the complainant’s house to solve the problem. But in spite of getting the assurance, the O.P. neither sent any service technician nor took any step regarding the same.

Similarly on 04.05.2017, the complainant submitted a letter requesting the O.P. to solve the problem but they did not take any step this time also.

Therefore the complainant applied before the Consumer Affairs Department, Burdwan but this time the complainant, being a bonafide consumer of the O.P., did not get any cooperation from the side of O.P. and they kept themselves mum regarding the solution of dispute/problem. Thus the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.

The complainant further submits that the cause of action arose on 29.04.2017 when the O.P. assured to solve the problem but has not been solved till date.

By filing the W/V, the O.P. denied all the claims of the complainant and submitted that the complainant purchased a D2H HD Box (New Connection) amounting to Rs.1600/- on 04.04.2017 from the authorized dealer Videocon (O.P.-Anandamela) without any guarantee & warranty and thereafter on all of a sudden, the complainant on 04.05.2017 made a representation about the problem of the machine alleging some fact but they had nothing to do since the said act had been occurred due to the act of the God and the company did not give any warranty of that product as such the O.P. has no deficiency and negligent towards the complainant.

The O.P. further submitted that they tried their best to give sufficient service to the complainant but the act of the God i.e., thunders causes the disturbances. So the O.P. is not negligent and has no deficiency to the complainant, the complaint is liable to be rejected.

Decision with Reasons

In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit, but as per order Dated 03.04.2019, O.P. did not file any questionnaire and as per order dated 02.05.2022 O.P. prayed to treat the W/V as their evidence-on-affidavit. On 08.07.2022 complainant submitted that he is not willing to file any questionnaire against the evidence of O.P. But both the complainant and O.P. filed their W.N.A.

Perused the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit and WNA of both sides. We also perused the Xerox copy of document submitted by the complainant. No documentary evidence has been filed by the O.Ps.

It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased D2H HD Box (New Connection) bearing model number DSK590 at the cost of Rs.1600/- and Videocon D2H Kit at the cost of Rs.250/-. The money receipt and tax invoice supported it.  On 23.04.2017, in the evening a thunderstorm (Kalbaisakhi) occurred due to which the signal of the HD Box became off and the complainant waited for three days for getting the signal from the HD Box and as no signal was there, he went to office of the O.P. on 27.04.2017 and lodged the complaint to take necessary steps regarding thereafter on 04.05.2017 he wrote a letter to the O.Ps including the complaint to solve the problem but no effect. The Xerox copies of letter supported it along with postal receipt. From this it is emerged that the TV signal of the picture was coming through HD Box of DTH 2 (Videocon) and due to such incident the service was interrupted. Though the O.P. denied the above allegation of the complainant and projected it that the DTH HD Box new Connection became off due to thunderstorm and took a plea that it is an act of God. The O.P. is not responsible for the negligent and deficiency of service and the company did not give any warranty of the said product. But considering the above situation, how the O.P. came to a conclusion that it was the act of God without verifying the HD Box and it may be defected otherwise than the act of God.

The fact of the complainant with documents very much show that the O.P. received the information from the complainant that the Videocon TV signal was not coming throughout the HD Box after three days of the incident and when the O.P. distributing the Videocon connection through Videocon DTH HD Box it is their responsibility to see the Videocon TV signal was running properly; specially when the O.P. received the information that the HD Box became off within one month from the date of purchase or the O.P. also after receiving the information sent their mechanical expert to verify the matter. In this situation,  the defense as submitted by the O.P. to the effect that the Company did not guaranteed the said product has no bearing at all and the O.P. could not avoid to render his service to the complainant when he distributed the DTH HD Box TV signal through the HD Box in question.

Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the O.P. committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get relief. The complainant is also entitled to get a litigation cost as he has to file this case for his claim. As a result the case succeeds. 

Hence, it is

                                            Ordered

that this case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. but without any cost.

The O.P. is liable to pay the relief of the complainant. The O.P. is directed to repair the said machine (D2H HD Box) and also directed to pay a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand) only within 45 days from date of receipt of the final order failing which the said amount shall carry interest of @6 per cent per annum till realization.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties on free of cost.     

                     Member                                                President-in-Charge

     D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman                        D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman