Orissa

Debagarh

CC/5/2017

Si Dayanidhi Sahu, aged about 45 years, S/O- Hurdananda Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bijaya Kumar Sahu, Proprietor Gayatri Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

S.Dehury

24 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DEOGARH.

C.C.NO.05/2017.

Present:- Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Sri Pratap Chandra Mahapatra, Member,

                                    And Smt. Jayanti  Pradhan,  Member(W).

 

            Sri Dayanidhi Sahu, aged about 45 Yrs,

            S/O.Hrudananda Sahu,

            At/- Jamunali,Post/-Dandasingha,

P.S/-Barkote, Dist/-Deogarh.                                                  …. Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Bijaya Kumar Sahu,

Proprietor Gayatri Electronica,

Main Road, Kandhal,

                   At/Post.Kandhal,P.S/-Barkote,

                   Dist/-Deogarh.    

2. Samsung Electronics India,
21.  

Golf Course Road, DCF Phase V,

Haryana 122002.                                                              …. Opp.Parties.

 

For the Complainant :-      Sri S.Dehury, Advocate.

For the Opp.Partry No.1:  Nemo.

For the Opp.Party No.2 :   Sri M.N.Sharma, Advocate.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2017 DATE OF ORDERS;22.08.2017.

     

SRI D.K.MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT;-Brief facts of the case is that , the complainant is a bonafide Consumer of a Samsung LED T.V (60 C.M)purchased  from the O.P.No.1, with a payment of Rs.13,900/- on dtd.27.8.2016 vide memo No.1114 with a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. But the said T.V set became out of order after 3 months of purchase having some problems on the LCD, becomes On/Off automatically, appearance of a white line permanently on the T.V. Screen. Then the Complainant has brought this matter to the notice of the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.no.1 advised him to visit the O.P.No.2, who is the  manufacturer of the LED T.V. Set. Accordingly to the oral version of the O.P.no.1, the complainant has called the Customer Care Centre and it assured the complainant to attend the call, will send a service personnel to his house as soon as possible. But none from the Customer Care Centre came to the house of the complainant to provide the service. Since that day, the complainant is facing a lot of problem as the LED T.V set lying out of order. Hence, the complainant has filed the case for certain relief, as prayed in the petition.     

            All the parties were served notice and they appeared before the Forum. O.P.No-2 filed Written Statement but O.P.No.1 remained silent. But on the day of hearing none of the O.P.no.1 and O.P.No.2 appeared the Forum, hence the hearing conducted in presence of the Complainant only. dtd.17.8.2017.

            During the process of hearing, the Advocate for the complainant is present and stated that the Complainant has received some message in his mobile phone regarding the acceptance of the customer complaints on various dates  and replied by providing some job order no. through mobile message. All the paper print out of the said message has been submitted before the Forum today as an evidence for the acceptance of Consumer Complain. Again the advocate for the Complainant stated in his written version that, the O.P.No-.2 has admitted that, he has given assurance to the complainant that they will replace the L.E.D T.V of the complainant at any time when they observe any defect in the said T.V. The Advocate for the complainant has objected to the version of O.P.no.-2 that, “the complainant has never intimated him about the defective L.E.D T.V set for service. So they are unknown about the defect of the T.V set of the complainant and the company is always ready to provide service at appropriate time for contracting consumer relation in smooth way.” Hence they denied the entire allegation made by the Complainant, in W/S given by the O.P.No.2.

            From the above it can be seen that, the complainant is a bonafide Consumer, who had purchased a LED T.V from the O.P.no.1 which has a one year Warranty period. When he faced some problems with the T.V. Set, made contract to the Opp.Parties but they remain silent and did not bother to provide service rather they played “HIDE & SEEK” Game with the Complainant. Hence, the complaint had decided to seek relief for this Forum. Again it can be cleared inferred that the Customer care has received the complain over Mobile phone from the Complainant and replied to attend it shortly and the statement made by the O.P-2 in his Written Version of non-receiving of Complain from Complainant is created, false, frivolous and vexatious as to put the Complainant in harassed state and to make them escape from the liability to render service within warranty period.

            From all the above discussion and after going through the material on record , the interference comes out that, the complainant is a bonafide consumer and the written version filed by the O.P.No.2 are self contradictory in nature and confusing . The O.Ps have committed deficiency in service U/S.2(1)(g) and Unfair Trade Practice U/S.2(I)( r ),to the complainant as he has sustained mental and physical pain by approaching the Opp.Parties  time to time. Though the warranty was 1 (one) year and the complainant was within the time, the Opp.Parties did not bother to serve him, rather harassed him. So, it is the duty of the Opp.Parties to provide a defect free LED T.V set by replacing the defective T.V set (of same brand and same model )to the complainant.

 

                                                            ORDER.

            The complaint petition is allowed. The Opp.Parties (Jiontly) hereby directed to replace the defective L.E.D. T.V set and provide a Defect Free New LED TV (of same brand and same model) and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) only as mental agony and pain and Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand) only as cost of litigation , for the defective T.V. Set and the deficiency of service caused by them. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to comply the order  within 30 days of receiving of this order, failing which the Opp.Parties shall have to pay in addition , an interest  of 9%  per annum till actually the amount is paid in course of law.

            Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

            Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e.on 22th day of August,2017 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

I    agree,                                             I    agree,

 

MEMBER(w)                                       MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.

 

                                                Dictated and Corrected       

                                                            By me.

 

 

                                                                       PRESIDENT.