Before the President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kandhamal, Phulbani

C.C. No. 02 / 2020

Present:         Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik       -     President

Sri Purnachandra Tripathy          -   Member

Siba Prasad Digal,aged about 52 year

S/O: Late Purundar Digal

At- Nadikhandi Sahi,PO- Phulbani,

PS/Dist: Town Phulbani, Kandhamal          ……………….           Complainant

Versus

1. Babula Senapati,

Proprietor, M/s. Arjun Senapati & sons

At: Main Road, Phulbani

PS: Town Phulbani, Dist: Kandhamal.

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

6^th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi – 1

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop No. 1 to 7, Ground Floor,

Odyassa Business Center,

Unit -12, Rasulgarh Square,

Bhubaneswar.

4. Sri Jagannath Agency,

Masterpada, Phulbani

For the Complainant:  Self

For the Opp. Party No: 1 - Self

For the Opp. Parties No: - 2, 3 & 4 – ex-parte. 

Date of order: 19^th January 2021

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant had purchased a Samsung LED T.V. vide Batch No.- UA55NU7090KXXL and bearing the Serial No. -06QW3NNM802939 on dated 23/12/2019 from O.P. No.1, the authorized dealer of Samsung vide Invoice No. 1909 for Rs. 70,000/- under Bajaj Finance and the above T.V was covered under the warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase. It is alleged that during the warranty period the T.V. found defective showing black lines and stopped. On dated 26/06/2020 the complainant intimated the fact of defect to the O.P No.1, upon such complain of the complainant, the OP No- 1 on dated 20/08/2020 send the OP No. 4 authorized service center who replaced the panel of the T.V. Thereafter on dated 22/09/2020 again the said T.V not functioned properly result of which the complainant and his family members deprived from enjoy the T.V. programmes.  Again the complainant lodged the complain before the OP No- 1 and narrated the defects, and thereafter the OP No. 4 again checked the TV  and found the same defect as earlier  and advised the complainant to replace the panel again for which  the OP No- 1 asked  the complainant to pay the cost of the defective parts though the warranty was in force, so the present complaint filed with the prayer to  this Commission to direct the Opp-parties to replace the  defective T.V  in lieu of new one or to refund the cost of the Television which amounting of Rs. 70,000/- apart from the complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- for litigation cost. Accordingly the notice issued to the Opp-parties for appearance and filling written version in their support. On receipt of the notice the OP No- 1 appeared and filed his version, on the other hand the O.P No. 2, 3 & 4 neither appeared nor did they file any version. Hence the OP No- 2 & 3 were declared set- exparte. Similarly the O.P No.4 who refused to receive the notice which presumes that the service of notice is sufficient, hence the OP No- 4 also set exparte.

Thereafter the complainant filed an evidence affidavit in support of his case and present on the date of argument. That on dated 15/01/2021 the OP No. 2, 3 & 4 appeared through their counsel and filed a petition U/s. - 40 of C.P. Act., 2019  r/w section 151 of CPC where the OP No. 2 to 4 prayed this commission to set aside the ex-parte order passed on dated 01/12/202020 and 10/12/2020, we heard the petition and the grounds submitted by the Ld. counsel on behalf of the OP No. 2 to 4, it is found that the petition was filed beyond the statutory period, hence the petition of the OP No. 2 to 4 stands rejected also this commission not accepted the written version of the OP No. 2 to 4.

 We peruse the case record and the  documents placed on record  gone through the evidence affidavit of  the Complainant,  heard the Complainant after the careful examination of the entire evidence available  on record, we found that  the Complainant had purchased a SAMSUNG LED T.V  vide Batch No UA55NU7090KXXL on payment of Rs. 70,000/- from the O.P No.1. After about 6 months the T.V found some defect and not functioned properly. Inspite of a valid warranty, the OPs did not render proper service to the complainant. Hence order.

O R D E R

The complaint case is allowed against the O.P No- 2, 3 &4 and they are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service towards the complainant, hence they are directed to repair the T.V with replace the defective parts with proper working condition to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant, apart from that it is also directed the OPs to issue fresh warranty against the replace parts of the TV not less than 6 month from the date of reparing.  Further the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- for litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, in the event of non-compliance of this order the OPs shall liable to refund the cost of the TV along with the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase to till the date of payment. Accordingly the C.C. is disposed off, free copy of this order be supplied to the parties.

            Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e. 19^th January 2021

Member                                                                                              President