West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/43/2021

Sri Dhurjhati Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Intex Technologies Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subrata Mukhopadhay,CAB

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

Smt. Saswati Saha- Member.

            The complainant has filed this petition of complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The fact of this case in brief is that, the complainant Sri Dhurjhati Mondal is a resident of Vill. Prayagpur, P.O. Uchpur, P.S. Mayuraswar and Dist. Birbhum within the jurisdiction of this District Commission. To be mentioned that the complainant is an ARMY Personnel by profession and he has to stay any part of India as and when he is posted.

            The OP  No. 1 is a company who engaged in manufacturing and selling the electronic products though all over India and abroad though its dealers and retailers and the OP No. 2 is a retailer of electronic goods having its address, Main Bazar, Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir, Pin. 18210.

            The complainant stated in his complaint that being an Army Personnel was posted in Jammu & Kashmir and there the complainant purchased a Television Set (Intex-LED-108 c.m.) by paying an amount of Rs. 38,000/- (Thirty eight thousand only) from the OP No. 2 with an warranty of 5(five) years, on the date 15/10/2016.

            Thereafter, the complainant brought the said television set at his permanent residence while he came back from Jammu & Kashmir and also took connection of DTH.

            After passing three (3) years the said Televisions Set was found with problem and the same was informed to the OP No. 1 and thereafter the same was exchanged with an old Television Set by the Service Engineer of the OP No. 1 after passing two months (approx.). The said Service Engineer also took service charge, for the service he delivered.

            Thereafter the said exchanged Television Set became faulty and this time the fact was also informed to the OP No. 1. After passing a long time the Service Engineer of the OP No. 1 came to the house of the complainant and exchanged the faulty Television Set with another one.

           

 

The exchanged another Television Set was also found faulty and the service engineer of the       OP NO. 1 demanded service charge for its repairing. The complainant refused to pay the same and thereafter the OP No. 1 also refused to repair the same.

            The OP No. 1 along with its Service Engineers and retailers are squeezing money from the customers, continuously, by showing various means which cannot be tenable in law.

            The complainant finding no other alternative has compelled to file the complaint for proper relief and justice.

            The OP for his sheer negligence, carelessness and poor service quality, cheated its customers and misleading them and putting them in problem alike this complainant.

            The cause of action arose on and from the first part of 2021 from when the complainant started to face problem and repeatedly requested to the OP members but of no effect.

            The aforesaid act of the OPs are amounting to deficiency in service. That finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case praying following relief/reliefs:-

1. To pass an order directing the OP members to repair the said Television Set with proper care without any service charge/return back the said purchased amount of the Television Set amounting Rs. 38,000/- (Thirty eight thousand only) along with interest till realization of the same to the complainant.
2. To pass further order directing the OP members to pay amount for the fault period of the Television Set, that amount has been paid to the DTH Company by the complainant.
3. To pass an order directing the OPs to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) for physical and mental harassment caused by the OPs.
4. Any other relief/reliefs as the Commission think fit and proper.

It appears from the case record that the case has already been run exparte against both the OP members, vide order No. 14, dated 01/12/2022.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Is the case maintainable in the eye of law?
2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
3. Is the complainant a consumer within the ambit of C.P Act 2019?
4. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP members?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
6. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

Decision with reason.

All these issues are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

 

 

The complainant Sri Dhurjhati Mondal is a permanent resident of Vill. Prayagpur, P.O. Uchpur, P.S. Mayuraswar and Dist. Birbhum within the jurisdiction of this District Commission.

The complainant, stated in his complaint as well as W/N/A that being an ARMY Personnel, while posted at Jammu & Kashmir he purchased a Television Set paying Rs. 38,000/- (Thirty eight thousand only) from OP No. 2, Raj Electronic, who is a retailer at the Main Bazar, Udhampm, Jammu & Kashmir, Pin. 182101, with a warranty of five years.

Thereafter, the complainant took the said Television Set at his residence of Permanent address while he came back from Jammu & Kashmir and took a DTH Connection for the said Television Set.

After three years the Television Set was found with problem.

The Commission found in the warranty card where it is clearly mentioned that “Warranty service against manufacturing defects in intex LED TV upto 1 (one) year from the date of first sale of the product to the end-customer.” and “Intex LED TV which is under warranty and having manufacturing defects shall be repaired FREE OF COST.”

                        But in the cash memo no.7253, dated .15/10/2016 of  OP No.2 M/S Raj Electronics it is clearly mentioned, five years warranty for the Intex-LED 108cm, television set.

                        The said television set of the complainant was found damaged within the warranty period but OP No.2 did not provide proper service for that television set to the complainant.

So the complainant was being harassed and had mental agony for the conduct of OP No.2.

                        The complainant gives evidence in support of his case as PW.1.

 The case has been run exparte against both the OP members by the oprder no.14, dated . 01/12/2022.

                        This Commission is not finding any reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant.

                        Hence, in view of this Commission the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt in exparte and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

                        The case is properly stamped.

Hence, It is

 

                                    O R D E R E D,

                                                            that the instant C.C. Case No. 43/2021 be and the same is allowed on exparte against OP No.2 with cost.

The OP No.2 is directed to pray a sum of Rs.38,000(Thirty Eight Thousand only)  to the complainant with @ 9% p.a. calculating on and from 19/07/2021 till the realization.

The OP No.2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000(Five Thousand) to the complainant for the expenditure of DTH connection.

The OP No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 (Five Thousand) to the complainant as against compensation for harassment and mental agony.

The OP No.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 (Five Thousand) to the Consumer Legal Aid  Account, DCDRC, Birbhum, Account No. 34041754378, IFSC Code. SBIN0000191, State Bank of India, Suri Branch.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP members jointly or severally within 45(Forty five) days from the date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

 

 

 

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.