Orissa

Jajapur

CC/36/2016

Sri Pramod Kumar Puhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Biswal's Sells - Opp.Party(s)

Surjyamani Maharana

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 24th day of July,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.36 of 2016

Sri Pramod Kumar Puhan,

Plot No.488(p)Nila kantha Nagar

Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar

Dist.-Khurda.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Biswal’s Sells Bus stand By pass ,Jajpur Road,

P.O. / P.S. Jajpur Road,  Dt.Jajpur.

2.Raj Elecrronics ,26 janapath ,Bapuji Nagar,Bhubaneswar.

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Party.                  

For the Complainant:                         Sri S.Moharana,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                          None. 

                                                                                                          Date of order:   24. 07.2017.

MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER  .

            This is a dispute which has been filed by the petitioner alleging not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice due to non replacement of defective LCD which was sold by the O.P.

            The brief facts is that the petitioner has purchased one Panasonic LCD model –L-29-C60X from O.pno.2 on dt.29.05.2013 at the cost of Rs.16,583.88 p/ .The O.P.no.2 also issued a warranty card of Panasonic LCD having one year  plus  two years additional warranty totally three years of warranty from the date of purchase .

            It is alleged by the petitioner that after  some days of purchase the said LCD did not run smoothly as a result only audio is coming but the  video is not coming  . There after the petitioner has sent several complain to O.P.no.1 Biswal Sales Branch retail counter of O.P.no.2 . and lodged  complain before O.P.no.2 bearing complain No.100715043096  dt.10.07.2015 in which the O.P.no.1 removed some defect but after 6 to 7 days more defects were also detected  .The O.P.no.2 gave assurance for replacement of LCD but no replacement has been done till date .

            There after the petitioner lodged several complain bearing No.070915364891 dt.07.09.15 ,11915388644 dt.11.09.15 No.280915463155 dt.28.09.15 But the O.P without taking any action remained silent . Hence  the petitioner along with one other consumer namely Ajay ku. Biswal (who is now using the same brand LCD ) has sent two Regd. lawyer notice to O.P.no.1 dt.21.12.15 and 19.04,.16 for replacement of said defective Panasonic LCD .But due to inaction,  the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

            After receipt of the notices the O.Ps neither appeared nor filed any written version after several opportunity given by this Fora .Hence they have been set-exparte dt.03.05.17 .

            On the date of hearing the adv. for the petitioner is absent.  We perused the record along with Annexed documents filed from the side of the petitioner as well as came to the conclusion as follows:

1. It is cristal clear that the petitioner has purchased the Panasonic  make LCD MODEL NO.L29C6DX at the cost of Rs.16,533.83p/ from O.P.no2 vide retail invoice No. RI(CR2397) on dt.29  May-2013 issued by O.P.no2 who is the authorized dealer of the said  LCD company and as per warranty card the said LCD provides three years of warranty from the date of purchase .

2. After some days of purchase  the petitioner informed the O.p.no2 about the defect of the LCD and subsequently lodged the complain vide complain No.100715043096 dt.10.07.2015 ., 070915364891 dt.07.09.15 , 110915388644 dt.11.09.15 ,  No.280915463155 dt.28.09.2015 .

3. It is also the fact that after the 1^st complain the O.p.no.1 rectified  some defects of the LCD which has not satisfied the petitioner. Thereafter the O.P.no.1 assured the petitioner to replace the LCD very soon .

4. It is also the clear fact that the petitioner purchased the LCD on 29.06.2013  and  the 1^st complain was lodged on 10.07.2015 before O.P.no.1 which  is the branch office of O.P.no.2  and service provider of the said LCD who  neither  rectified the defective LCD nor replaced the LCD.

5. On the other hand the O.Ps. neither appeared nor contested the dispute . In the circumstances we are to accept the uncontroverted statement mentioned by the petitioner made in the complain petitioner as per observation of Hon’ble Odisha State Commission reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96 p,15 C. D. Case No.37/02 wherein it is held that:

“In absence of written version by the O.P, the commission is bound to accept the  uncontroverted statement of the complaint  petition.”

And

2013(1)CPR-507-NC,wherein it is held that:-

            “In case written version not filed after several opportunity , it has no defence on merit.”

6.The petitioner also  has served two Regd. pleader notice along with another consumer who is using  the same make LCD  but the O.p.no.1 slept over the matter . Hence the petitioner was compelled  to file the present dispute.. This attitude of the O.P  not only speaks gross deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice as per observation of Hon’ble  National Commission reported in 2013(10) CPR-456(NC) ( M/S Rita Vrs. Sikander Singh) wherein it is held that:

            “Non reply of legal notice may draw adverse inference”.

                                                                          O R D E R

The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps   exparte . The O.Ps are directed to replace defective LCD either  of same model or same range within one month after receipt of the order, failing which the O.ps shall refund the price of the LCD after taking back the defective LCD from the petitioner along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-which will be  paid by O.P to the petitioner . No cost.                                                                           .      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 24 th day of July,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.