Date of Filing: 10/07/2014 Date of Final Order: 26/06/2015
The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the complainant purchased new one Videocon LCD 32” on 08/11/2013, from the O.P. No.2, Swapna Electronics, Khagrabari, Cooch Behar being Model No. LCDTVIVA32HM, Serial No. 110713110119623128 against deposited of Rs.19,000/- and the O.P. No.2 (Dealer/Seller) issued a Warranty Card of one year. After purchasing the said LCD within few days it was started giving disturbance and for which the complainant contacted with the O.P. No.2, when the O.P. No.2 advised to contact with the Authorized Service Center of the said Company i.e. the O.P. No.1, Betar, Cooch Behar and accordingly, the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and after through check up the O.P. No.1 (Authorized Service Center) informed to the complainant to change its "Power Board" and as the O.P. No.1 is the Authorized Service Center of the said company as told by the O.P. No.2 and as the said set is within the warranty period, so the complainant gave his consent to repair the same but that time the O.P. No.1 did not issued any job sheet and repair the same. After getting the repaired set the complainant has been using the same but within a short period i.e. on 10/05/2014 the said set again giving disturbance on various ways and instantly the complainant contacted with the said service center, O.P. No.1 as well as the O.P. No.2. After through check up of the said LCD the O.P. No.1 informed to the complainant to keep the said LCD for few days at their center and accordingly the complainant do the same and this time the O.P. No.1 issued one improper job sheet without any seal or registration number of the company. Thereafter the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 on several occasions to get back the said LCD but the O.P. No.1 avoided the complainant without showing any reason whatsoever.
Ultimately, after a long laps of time i.e. on 11/06/2014 the O.P. No.1. intimated the complainant that if they repaired the said LCD, the complainant have to bear the entire cost of parts as well as service charge but when the complainant denied and showed the warranty card of the said T.V then O.P. No.1 offered the complainant to change the said disputed LCD with a new one, in that case the O.P. No.1 claimed some amount but the complainant did not consent on such illegal demand of the O.P as the warranty period of the said set is on existent.
In the mean time the complainant by a notice dated 12/06/2014 to the O.P. No.1 demanded a new L.C.D set in place of the said disputed L.C.D set but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed and harassing the complainant on various ways and the said L.C.D is still laying at the office of the O.P. No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that in the mean time the O.P. No.1 has brought another set of T.V due to the said problems.
By such willful act of omission & commission, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant has suffered a lot from mental agony, pain and huge monetary loss and unnecessary harassment.
Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the instant Case No. DF/42/2014 with enclosed relevant documents together with I.P.Os. of Rs.100/- before this Forum for redress of the dispute and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to pay (1) Replace the said disputed set with new one (same model & feature) or refund the purchase amount of the said T.V with up to date interest thereof, (2) Rs.5,000/- for compensation, (3) Rs.5,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and (4) Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, Betar, Cooch Behar has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action to being this case and the case is not tenable in law. The main contention of the O.P. No.1 is that on 05/02/2014 the O.P. No.1 got an information regarding dispute of Videocon L.C.D T.V from the complainant which was purchased from the O.P. No.2. Accordingly, on the said date the O.P.No.1 went to the house of the complainant and after thorough checking/examined of the said L.C.D the O.P. No.1 send a report to the Videocon Company through Branch Manager of Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri. On the basis of the report of the O.P. No.1, the Videocon Company send a e-mail to the Branch Manager Take Care India Pvt. Ltd. and wherein the company stated that spare not supply and quality issue. After that Branch Manager of Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri than an then informed the said fact to the O.P. No.1 and accordingly the O.P. No.1 convey the message of the company to the complainant. On 19/03/2014 Head Office of Take Care India Pvt. Ltd. sent a letter to the B.M. Siliguri mentioning that the said L.C.D of the complainant will be replaced on the same date. Then the B.M. Siliguri forwarded the letter to the office of the O.P. No.1 and directed to the O.P. No.1 to sent the said L.C.D in the office of the B.M, Siliguri. After getting such information from the B.M. Siliguril the O.P. No.1 communicated with the complainant and requested him in several time to bring back the said L.C.D in the office of the O.P. No.1 at Cooch Behar but the complainant did not come in the office of the O.P. No.1 along with the said L.C.D and more over the complainant did not request to the O.P. No.1 to come in his house for taking the said L.C.D which was lying in the house of the complainant.
On 10/05/2014 suddenly the complainant come to the office of the O.P. No.1 along with the said L.C.D in dead condition and handover the same to the O.P. No.1. On 18/05/2014 the O.P. No.1 sent the said L.C.D to the office of the Branch Manager, Siliguri for taking necessary steps. On 18/07/2014 the Branch Manager of Take care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri sent the said L.C.D set to the office of the O.P. No.1 in good and running condition after completion of all necessary work. After receiving the said L.C.D set the O.P. N0.1 informed to the complainant over telephone and requested him to receive the said L.C.D set in good condition from the office of the O.P. No.1 but till today complainant has not come in the office of the O.P. No.1 to take his L.C.D set and since then the said L.C.D set is lying in the Office of the O.P. No.1. The complainant did not turn up before the O.P. No.1 on repeated requests to get back his L.C.D set with some malice intention which tanaments the complainant’s willful intention to refuse to accept the said set in good and running condition. So there is no negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.1 prayed for dismissal of the case without any costs.
It appears that inspite of due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.2, Swapna Electronics, Khagrabari, Cooch Behar did not turn up and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument advanced by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
Evidently the Complainant purchased a LCD T.V from the O.P. No.2 at a price of Rs.19,000/-. So the complainant is consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 under the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
Office of the O.P. No.2 is situated within Cooch Behar town and total valuation of the present case is Rs.15,000/- and value of the T.V of Rs.19,000/- i.e. Rs.34,000/- which is far less than maximum pecuniary limit of this Forum i.e. Rs.20,00,000/-.
So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
It is the case of the Complainant, Ankur Modak that he purchased new one Videocon LCD 32” on 08/11/2013, from the O.P. No.2, Swapna Electronics, Khagrabari, Cooch Behar being Model No. LCDTVIVA32HM, Serial No. 110713110119623128 against deposited of Rs.19,000/- and the O.P. No.2 (Dealer/Seller) issued a Warranty Card of one year.
Cash Memo dated 08/11/2013 reveals that the complainant Ankur Modak has purchased a Videocon LCD 32” at a price of Rs.19,000/-. The Warranty Card issued by the O.P. No.2 reveals that the Warranty Card was issued in respect of the said LCD for one year.
It is the further case of the complainant that after purchasing the said LCD within few days it was started giving disturbance and for which the complainant contacted with the O.P. No.2, when the O.P. No.2 advised to contact with the Authorized Service Center of the said Company i.e. the O.P. No.1, Betar, Cooch Behar and accordingly, the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and after through check up the O.P. No.1 (Authorized Service Center) informed to the complainant to change its "Power Board" and as the O.P. No.1 is the Authorized Service Center of the said company as told by the O.P. No.2 and as the said set is within the warranty period, so the complainant gave his consent to repair the same but at that time the O.P. No.1 did not issue any job sheet and repair the same.
It is the next case of the complainant that after getting the repaired set the complainant has been using the same but within a short period i.e. on 10/05/2014 the said set again giving disturbance on various ways and instantly the complainant contacted with the said service center, O.P. No.1 as well as the O.P. No.2. After through check up of the said LCD the O.P. No.1 informed to the complainant to keep the said LCD for few days at their center and accordingly the complainant did the same and this time the O.P. No.1 issued one improper job sheet without any seal or registration number of the company. Thereafter the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 on several occasions to get back the said LCD but the O.P. No.1 avoided the complainant without showing any reason whatsoever.
The job sheet dated 10/05/2014 issued by the O.P. No.1, Betar reveals that said LCD in question was received by the O.P. No.1 for repair.
It is the further case of the complainant that on 11/06/2014 the O.P. No.1 intimated him that if any repair was made in respect of the said LCD, the complainant was to pay entire costs of parts with service charge but he showed the warranty card and refused to pay said costs. Then the O.P. No.1 claimed some extra money and told him that he was ready to replace the said T.V on receiving some extra money but the complainant was not agreed with his proposal.
The complainant in his evidence on oath claimed that the O.P. No.1 demanded extra money from him for repair/replacement of the said T.V set within warranty period but he refused.
Certainly the O.P. No.1 cannot claim any money for repair of the set within warranty period.
It is the further case of the complainant that on 12/06/2014 by sending a notice to the O.P. No.1, he demanded a new L.C.D set in place of the said disputed L.C.D set but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed and harassing the complainant on various ways and the said L.C.D is still laying at the office of the O.P. No.1.
On the other hand it is the case of the O.P. No.1 that on 05/02/2014 they received information regarding dispute of LCD of the complainant purchased by him from the O.P. No.2 and on self same dates after examining/checking of T.V set a report was sent to the company through the Branch Manager, Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri and on the basis of the report of the O.P. No.1, the Videocon company sent a email to the Branch Manager, Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri, wherein the company stated that spare not supply and quality issue. Then Take Care India Pvt. Ltd. informed the matter to the O.P. No.1 then and there and the O.P. No.1 informed the matter to the complainant by sending massage.
It is also the case of the O.P. No.1 that on 19/03/2014 Head Office, Take Care India Pvt. Ltd. sent a letter to the Branch Manager, Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri that the LCD of the complainant will be replaced and Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri by sending a letter to the O.P. No.1 directed them to send the said LCD to Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri. But the complainant did not turn up and lastly on 10/05/2014 he came to the office of the O.P. No.1 and produce the said LCD. On 18/05/2014 the O.P. No.1 sent the said LCD to Take Care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri. So there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1.
It is clear from the above averments made in the written version filed by the O.p. No.1 that they were ready to replace the said LCD T.V of the complainant.
But we find that in next part of the written version, the O.P. No.1 stated that on 18/07/2014 the Branch Manager of Take care India Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri sent the said L.C.D to the office of the O.P. No.1 after completion of all necessary work and the said LCD is still today in a good and running condition and there is no dispute at all. On that date the O.P. No.1 informed to the complainant to take back his LCD T.V but he did not care.
Evidently the present case was filed on 10/07/2014 and after filing of the case, after keeping the said LCD T.V in their custody for two months, the O.P. No.1 asked the complainant to take back his old/repaired LCD T.V, though in their written version the O.P. No.1 clearly stated that they were ready to replace the said LCD T.V.
During hearing of argument the Ld. Agent/Adv. of the complainant submitted a ruling reported in 2013(3) CPR 104 (HP), where a Laptop was purchased by the complainant from the O.P and the same had become defective and not functioning properly with some inherent manufacturing defect. Ld District Forum ordered for replace of the Laptop and Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to confirm said order.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that the present case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as manufacturer of the said T.V set has not been made party to the case. But Consumer Case does not fail due to non-joinder of the party and the O.P. No.1 also can add the manufacturer as party to the case.
More so, evidently the Take Care India Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri i.e. Branch Office of Videocon company was suomoto ready to replace the said LCD T.V set due to non-availability of the parts of the same.
So, considering over all matter into consideration we are constrained to hold that the O.P. No.1 is liable to replace the defective Videocon LCD T.V of the complainant.
Regarding deficiency in service we find that there is only allegation against the O.P. No.2, Swapna Electronics that when his LCD T.V started to disturbance the complainant met with them and they advised to contact with the O.P. No.1, Betar. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2.
Regarding the O.P. No.1, Betar we find that after repair of the said T.V set by the O.P. No.1 on 10/05/2014 the said set again began to give disturbance.
It is also the case of the complainant that 10/05/2014 he produced the said T.V set to the O.P. No.1 and on 11/06/2014 the O.P. No.1 claimed extra money for repair/replacement of the said T.V set, which they cannot claim within warranty period and he refused.
We further find that after two months i.e. on 18/07/2015 (only after filing of the present case) the O.P. No.1 informed the complainant to take back his repaired T.V.
So, it is clear from the above made discussion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1and they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
Ultimately, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant and the case is allowed in part.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. DF/42/2014 be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed on ex-parte against the O.P. No.2 without any costs.
The O.P. No.1, Betar is also directed to replace the LCD T.V of the complainant by supplying new LCD/LED T.V of same model and price within 15 days and if such model is not available, supply any other nearby model with same facility and near about price to the complainant. The O.P. No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for compensation to the complainant. The ordered amount shall pay to the Complainant within 45 days failure of which the O.P shall pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
