District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri Sambhunath Chatterjee - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Shri Siddhartha Ganguli - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 5/2015
Buddhadev Das
S/o Late Monmohar Das
Vill.: Par Patiram
PO: Atrai, P.S.: Balurghat,
Mobile No.: 9002778505
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. Gopal Saha,
S/o Gadadhar Saha,
Proprietor of : M/s. Maa Electronics & Cassette Centre
Vill.: Par Patiram
PO: Atrai, P.S.: Balurghat,
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur.
2. Phillips India Ltd.
7, Justice Chandra Madhab Road,
Kolkata-700 020, India, …………………Opposite Party / Parties
Ld. Advocate(s):
For complainant ……………… - Shri Santanu Dey
For OP No. 1 ……………… - Shri Kishore Kr. Bhattacharjee
For OP No. 2 ……………… - None
Date of Filing : 09.01.2015
Date of Disposal : 10.12.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 10.12.2015
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Philips 21” CTV Model No. 21PT4327/V7 from the OP No.1 at a price of Rs.8,300/- at the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in cash and rest amount of Rs.3,000/- was paid by 6 (six) installments i.e. Rs.500/- per month. After purchase the TV set it was found defective and the complainant faced problems regarding picture, sound etc. The complainant finding the problems went to shop of OP No.1 to lodge his complaint but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the complainant.
At present the TV set does not show any picture and the said set is not working condition. After clearing of balance amount i.e. installment the OP No.2 sent a company’s serviceman but he was unable to solve the problem. According to conversation of the said serviceman the set become defective due to allowing delay in initial stage of problem. The said serviceman opined that the set should be sent to the company’s service centre. The complainant after verbally requested to the OP No.1 to solve the problem but the OP No.1 did not take any action ultimately a Lawyer’s notice was sent by registered post with A/D but the OP No.1 did not reply. Due to harassment faced by the complainant, he has prayed for compensation as well as necessary direction upon the OP No.1 for returning the price of the TV set with interest.
During the pendency of the case the complainant filed a petition praying for adding party to the manufacturer of the said TV set i.e. Phillips India Ltd. 7, Justice Chandra Madhab Road, Kolkata-700 020, India. The said petition was allowed and the Summons was served upon OP No.2 but none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, as such the case has proceeded ex-parte against the OP No.2.
Contd…P/3
OP No.1 contested the case by filing a written version wherein the Proprietor of M/s. Maa Electronics & Cassette Centre denied all the material allegations of the petition. It was specifically stated by the OP No.1 that OP No.1 is a retail electronics shopkeeper and the complainant purchased one Philips 21” Color TV set from his shop on 6.1.2014. The value of the TV set was Rs.8,300/- and at the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in cash and the rest amount remained due. After purchase on installment payment the complainant had informed the OP No.1 that the TV set was not functioning properly in the month of August, 2014 and Philips Company sent a mechanic to check the irregularity of the TV set and it was found that there was no defect. Further, second time when mechanic came to Balurghat he also went to the house of the complainant for final checking but the complainant was not ready to accept any service from the mechanic and as a result the mechanic returned without examining the said TV set. The complainant repeatedly demanded to replace the TV set as a new one unnecessarily without any reason whatsoever. No negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and the Philips Company cropped up in this matter. Only to harass the OP No.1 the complainant filed this case.
It was further stated that the Philips company is renowned manufacturer the company is always ready to provide all sorts of services to the customers and if any customer refused to accept the service from the authorized person of that company, for that reason it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the said company as well as of its authorized seller.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case. Considering the materials on record the following points are be decided :-
- Whether the complainant purchased a TV set from the OP No.1?
Contd…P/4
- Whether the complainant paid the entire sale price of the TV?
- Whether there was any mechanical defect found in the said TV set purchased by the complainant?
- Whether within the warranty period, of any defect was found in the said TV?
- Whether any authorized mechanic from the OP No.2 inspected the TV set?
- Was there any defect in the said TV set?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of the said fact.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that from the documents filed by the complainant at appears that the TV purchased from the shop of the OP No.1, out of total sale price of Rs.8,200/- the complainant paid initially Rs.5000/- and subsequently he paid the balance amount in equal installment. The said purchase was made on 6.1.2014, which has also been admitted by OP No.1 in his written version. Since, the TV had the defects it was brought to the notice of the OP No.1, who sent a person who had no conception regarding the technique of the TV and he could not solve the problem. The said mechanic disclosed that the defect cropped up due to long delay in initial stage of problem and the said serviceman informed that the said TV should be sent to the company service centre. The OP No.1 did not take any step for sending the TV set to service centre or to attend the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant requested the OP No.1 on numerous occasions for replacement of the TV set and praying for new one is to be provided to him, but OP No.1 neglected and did not give any positive response to the complainant. Being frustrated to fulfill the grievance of the complainant he contacted his Lawyer who sent a lawyer’s letter to the OP No.1 for redressal of the grievance of the complainant but no reply was given, ultimately the
Contd…P/5
complainant had to file this case praying for returning the price of Rs.8,300/- with interest and compensation.
Ld. Lawyer for the OP No.1 argued that while the complainant informed to OP No.1 regarding the problem faced by him in his TV set to which the complainant sent a mechanic having the training from the manufacturing company and on inspection of the TV by the said mechanic at the residence of the complainant, he did not find any fault. The said fact was communicated to the complainant but in spite of said fact the complainant repeatedly informed the OP No.1 that the TV was creating problem to him for which again the mechanic was sent at the residence of the complainant but the complainant did not allow him to inspect the TV.
In view of the said fact that the Ld. Lawyer for the OP-1 argued that the OP-1 is not the manufacturer and person who examined the TV was sent by the OP No.2 company he did not find any fault, the complainant only wanted to have a new TV set which was not provided by the OP No.1 since there was no defect in the said TV set. In view of such backdrop of the case it is the fit the case of dismissed the complaint.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the TV from the OP No.1 and the TV set supplied to the complainant was manufactured by the OP No.2 which is a reputed company and after getting a complaint from the complainant the OP-1 informed the said fact to the OP-2 who sent a mechanic for examination of the TV set and on examination it was found that there was no defect. It is also found from the materials on record that the OP-1 again sent the serviceman of the said OP-2 company who visited the house of the complainant but the complainant did not allow him to inspect the TV set to find out whether there was any defect in the said TV set.
Contd…P/6
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case since the complainant himself did not allow the mechanic to inspect the TV for the second time and whenever during the first examination the said mechanic opined there was no defect at all, we hold that the complainant in order to harass the OP-1 has filed this case against the OPs but having cogent ground whatsoever and the complainant committed mistake and claim made by him was a false one, as such he did not allow the mechanic to inspect the TV set while he visited the house of the complainant. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint CC No.5/2015 is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
…………….…….
(S. N. Chatterjee)
President
We concur,
………..…… ………….……..
(S. Saha) (S. Ganguli)
Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
