Ananda Kumar Panda filed a consumer case on 30 Jan 2023 against Cloudtail India Private Limited in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/41/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Feb 2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.41/2022
Mr. Ananda Kumar Panda,
S/o:Late Akshaya Kumar Panda,
At:Bhanpur,P.O/P.S:Jagatpur,
Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,PIN-754021. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
Park,AntaMouza:Majukhetra,bearing Survey No.301,
Kolkata,West Bengal,711401,IN.
QDIGI Service Ltd.,Shop No.16 & 17,First Floor,
Block 1 & 2, BMC Bhawani Office Complex,
At:Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751007.
Model Town 11,NewDelhi,NorthWest,Delhi,
India.
Brigade Gateway,
8th Floor,26/01,Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Malleshuaram
(W) Bangalore-56005,Kanataka,India. ...Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 07.03.2022
Date of Order: 30.01.2023
For the complainant: Mr. S.Behera,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps. :None.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased One Plus 138.8cm(55 inches) Q1 Series 4K Certified Android Q LED TV 55 Q1 IN Pro (Black) with sliding Soundbar BO7W7VQ3Z7(BO7W7VQ3Z7) HS N:8528 through Amazon Online platform for consideration amount of Rs.74,900/-. The Speaker Bar movement of the said LED TV of the complainant gave trouble on 25.8.2021 for which complaint was raised by the complainant. There was trouble in display line and cracking issue in the said LED TV which was noticed on 21.9.2021 and another complaint was raised in this context. After several persuasions of the complainant the motor of the said LED TV was replaced in One Plus 55 q1 Pro Speaker Bar Cover within the warranty period effective from 3.11.2020 to 2.11.2021. It is further alleged by the complainant in his complaint petition that inspite of such replacement there was physical damage noticed on 3.11.2021 for which he had to raise another complaint and inspite of his repeated persuasions when no fruitful result yielded he had issued legal notices to the O.Ps and ultimately had to file this case claiming cost of the said LED TV to the tune of Rs.74,900/- , interest thereon @ 13.5% per annum, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his omental agony and harassment and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also towards the expenses and has also prayed for a sum of rs.10,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.
The complainant has filed copies of several documents together his complaint petitionin order to prove his case.
2. Having not contested this case, all the O.Ps were set exparte vide orders dt.2.9.2022&15.9.2022.
3. The points for determination in this case are as follows:
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?
Point No.ii.
Out of the three points, point no. ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
Admittedly, the complainant had purchased One Plus 138.8cm(55 inches) Q1 Series 4K Certified Android Q LED TV 55 Q1 IN Pro (Black) with sliding Soundbar BO7W7VQ3Z7(BO7W7VQ3Z7) HS N:8528 through Amazon Online platform for consideration amount of Rs.74,900/- and the Speaker Bar movement of the said LED TV of the complainant gave trouble for which the complainanthad raised complaintbefore the O.Ps on 25.8.2021.There was trouble in display line and cracking issue in the said LED TV which was noticed on 21.9.2021 and another complaint was raised in this context by the complainant. After several persuasions of the complainant the motor of the said LED TV was replaced in One Plus 55 q1 Pro Speaker Bar Cover within the warranty period effective from 3.11.2020 to 2.11.2021. But inspite of such replacement there was physical damage noticed on 3.11.2021 for which he had to raise another complaint and inspite of his repeated persuasions which appears from the copy of the mail chats, when no fruitful result yielded he had issued legal notices to the O.Ps and ultimately had to file this case before this Commission for redressal of his grievances. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Psby not repairing/replacing the above said LED TV of the complainant inspite of his repeated requests. Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the complainant.
Issues no.i& iii.
From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.
ORDER
Case is allowed exparte against all the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. They are directed to repair/replace the LED T.V. of the complainant with a new one within a month hence or in the alternative to pay the complainant cost of the LED T.V i.e. Rs.74,900/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% from the date of purchase till the final payment is made. The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.