West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/15/10

Md. Semim - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

Miss Rina Mukherjee , Sr. Member.

            This is a case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

The case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a television manufactured by Videocon Company (O.P No.1) through Anandamela Electronics (O.P No.2) for consideration of Rs. 18990/-. After some days the said T.V was being disturbed and the complainant informed the matter before the O.P No.2 but they did not take any initiative to restore the TV set in order. Thereafter the complainant registered complaint being No. ASA0203140002 dated 02.03.2014 and ASA1508140028 dated 15.08.2014 before the O.P No.1 and some persons of O.P No.1 inspected the TV set but could not restore the defect of it. The complainant again lodged another complaint being No. ASA2810140035 dated 28.10.14 but there was no response on the part of the O.Ps though the television was within warrantee period. The complainant could not watch the TV set due to manufacturing defect in it. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case praying for direction to the O.P for the replacement of the defective TV by a new defect free one as per the description depicted in purchased voucher or the refunding of purchased amount with interest along with compensation and litigation cost.

After receiving the notice the O.P No.1 appeared and filed written version but thereafter did not contest. In that written version the O.P No.1 stated that after getting complaint from complainant the authorized person of the company attended and resolved the problem of the complainant’s television to the satisfaction of the complainant and the TV was running smoothly. The O.P No.1 again said that the company is ready to provide repair services of the television as per the company warrantee condition. The O.P No.1 said that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.

The O.P No.2 also contested the case by filing written version and stated that O.P No.2 is not the manufacturer of the goods, he is only the seller of the good. The O.P No.2 again stated that after receiving the complaint from the complainant, the O.P No.2 informed the matter to the Company and accordingly the representative of the company went to the house of the complainant to restore the defect of the TV set. The O.P No.2 further stated that they are law abiding people and acted according to agreement. The O.P No.2 said they have no deficiency in service and prayed for rejection of the complaint against them.

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit and some documents. The O.P No.2 cross examined the complainant in the form of questionnaire and reply. The O.P No.2 also filed evidence on affidavit. The complainant did not cross examined the O.P No.2. Only the complainant filed written argument.

We have verified the documents and heard Ld. Lawyers for the parties carefully. There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the TV set by the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 18990/- with description – VEDOCON-32”LCD; Mode – LCD TViva 32HM; Seriol No. -930313110119600779 which has been manufactured by O.P No.1 Company. It is also not in dispute that the TV is under warrantee period at the time of occurrence of dispute. It is also admitted that the complainant had lodged complaint 3-times regarding the disturbance occurred in the TV set, on 02.03.14 vide complainant No. ASA0203140002; on 15.08.14 vide complaint No. ASA1508140028 and on 28.10.14 vide complaint No. ASA2810140035.

In this regard the O.Ps were stated that after receiving the complaint the authorized person of the O.P No.1 Co. along with O.P No.2 inspected the TV set and duly resolve the problems every time to the satisfaction of the complainant.

In reply the complainant argued that the authorized person of O.P No.1 attended first two times but could not restore the defect of the said television and after 3^rd complaint no person of the O.P Company was attended to restore the defect. The complainant also stated that the O.P could not restore the problem at any time because there is a manufacturing defect in the TV set and no person of the O.P Co. inspected the TV set after getting 3^rd complaint as they have knowledge about the manufacturing defect of the TV set. Now the question is whether the TV set has manufacturing defect or not? It is clear that the complainant has lodged first complaint within 3-months from the date of purchasing and he had registered three complaints within 10 months. On the other hand O.P also stated that their authorized person resolved the problems of the TV set every time. So, it can be concluded that there was some defect in the TV set from the beginning.

Besides, the complainant filed his affidavit alleging manufacturing defect in the TV set. The O.P Co. neither filed any inspection/service report to prove that the defect was repaired and the TV set was running in perfect condition nor any affidavit of their authorized person who attend the said TV set. So, the deposition of the complainant with respect to manufacturing defect remains wholly unrebutted.

Moreover on careful perusal of the record we find that the O.P No.1 on 09.04.15 had offered to replace the TV set by another model for compromising but the complainant did not agree. In this regard we have followed the decision taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 822 of 2016 reported in 2017(1)CPR229(NC), where Hon’ble National Commission decided that “offer to make replacement indicates manufacturing defects in product.” Relying upon the above decision we can concluded that there is a manufacturing defect in the TV set in question.

 The complainant prayed in the prayer portion of his complaint for replacement of the TV set by a same new one or refunding of purchased value with interest.

On verification of the record we find that during the trial of the case, O.P No.1 had offered to replace the TV set by another model as the model of the complainant’s TV set is not available at present but complainant has not satisfied with that model.

             Reliance has been placed on the decision taken by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi cited in 2009 CTJ 180(CP)(SCDRC) Delhi as “in a dispute of defective goods cost of such goods be refunded to the end of the dispute. Replacement of goods is not a solution as such goods may not be upto the satisfaction of consumer.” Hence we have decided that the purchase value of the TV set be refunded to the complainant for the ends of justices.

So, from the above discussion it is clear that the O.Ps have deficiency in service in this case. Hence the case stands in favour of the complainant.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 10/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps.

            The O.P No.1 is directed to refund the purchased price of the TV set of Rs. 18990/- through O.P No.2 to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. since the date of purchase i.e. from 29.11.2013 till the realization of the amount on returning the defective TV set by the complainant. The O.P No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant. All the above payment should be made within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.