Dtd. 05.01.2023

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with treatment extended by the opposite parties as mentioned above in the matter of purchase of a Television set and the post sales services thereof, the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 23.02.2021, u/s 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Apart from the item Television set, the complainant has also ventilated his grievances over purchase of a kitchen chimney from the OP1 and post-sales services thereof. But in that case OP2 and OP3 do not appear to have any involvement.

The fact of the case after trimming the unnecessary details is as follows.

The complainant purchased a Television set from OP 1 on 26.10.2019. As reported by the complainant, the TV set has been functioning well since the said purchase. But after a couple of months ‘the complainant started experiencing certain difficulties’.   Allegedly, one fine day when the item was within the warranty period a ‘colored mark which was in the shape of a small hairline’ was detected in the right hand corner of the television.

On being called, personnel representing both OP1 and OP 2, from the service centre, attended the issue at the complainant’s place and on inspection of the TV set, were of the opinion that the mark was a result of external damage and the warranty did not cover such type of damage.

The complainant on the other hand rules out any possibility of external damage stating that the particular portion of the TV where the damage was detected was initially covered by a plastic tape. The complainant claims to have sent e-mails over the issue but reportedly received evasive replies.

 Here, at this point in the complainant petition, the complainant refers a bit abruptly to his further grievance over purchase of a kitchen chimney from the same OP 1 where OP 2 and OP 3 had no involvement. The complainant claims to have faced certain troubles arising out of the defective installation of the chimney. In this case also, the complainant admits that the concerned technician turned up on call and attended the issue. But the complainant does not categorically mention in the complaint petition that whether the issue was resolved or not. Here the complainant appears to be evasive. Thus this particular issue being somewhat irrelevant does not deserve any further discussion in this order.

Considering the aforementioned as deficiency of service on the opposite parties’ part the complainant approaches to this Commission and prays for imposition of direction upon the opposite parties to 1) replace the TV set or replace the necessary parts of the TV, 2) refund the entire consideration price of the TV set as per invoice, 3) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, 4) pay further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for ‘harassment faced due to the irregularities on the part of the opposite party’, 5) pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost and also such other reliefs as the Commission may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. As documentary evidence the complainant has annexed copies of the relevant invoice and the warranty card only with the complaint petition.

OP 2 and 3 contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument whereas OP 1 only filed the written version and finally the case ran ex parte against OP 1. All the OPs denied the charges leveled against them in their respective representations.

Now in the light of the discussion made hereinabove, the complainant having purchased goods for his own use against a consideration price is a consumer u/s 2(7) (i) of the Act.

The complainant and the OP1 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly and the claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has both territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant matter.

The questions whether there was any deficiency of service on the opposite parties’ part and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief are taken together in the following part of this order.

Decision with reasons:- OP 1 in their written version points out that they were not manufacturer of the item in question and they only played the role of reseller of various goods.

OP 2 and OP 3 mention in their written version that the complainant for the first time approached to the OP 2 on 02.09.2020 with the complaint of scratch mark on the TV screen and consequent difficulty in viewing. It is claimed that the complaint was promptly attended by the concerned authorized service centre. In support of the claim, photo-copy of the job sheet and a few photographs of the TV set have been filed. The service engineer on detection of an external damage on the TV screen mentioned the same in the relevant job sheet. However, the copy of the job sheet filed before this Commission shows that the complainant refused to countersign the job sheet.

OP 2 and OP 3 referring to the clause 8 of the Standard Warranty terms and conditions mentions that an external damage on the screen of a TV set is not supposed to be covered under the standard warranty terms and conditions. Copy of the said terms and conditions has been annexed with the written version. However the service engineer is reported to have suggested that the TV set might be repaired only against payment of cost.  To settle the matter amicably, OP 3 on the other hand as a goodwill gesture claims to have offered to repair the TV set free of cost. But the complainant insisted on replacement of the TV set.

Materials on records are perused. So far as all the aspects of the complaint petition are concerned there are some questionable areas.

The complainant purchased the TV set on 26.10.19 and as per her submission the set was ‘working fine’. But after a couple of months, the complainant ‘started experiencing certain difficulties’ and one fine day a ‘colored mark in the shape of a small hairline’ was found in the right hand corner of the TV.

However it transpires from a close examination of the extant records that the defect was first detected two months after the purchase i.e. perhaps in the month of December 2019 whereas the respective job sheet filled up by the concerned service engineer shows that the spot inspection was done on 02.09.2020 i.e. after eight months after the detection. There is no such allegation of the complainant that there was a deliberately belated inspection. Thus it may be presumed that the complaint with the opposite parties was launched three or four days before the visit. Now the automatic question crops up that why the complainant took this much time to launch the complaint. The complainant in his petition nowhere specifies the time and manner of lodging the  complaint with the OPs. Besides, the complainant has not filed the copies of purported communications made with the opposite parties through e-mails.

Now the core issue which deserves a mention here, that whether the damage was an internal technical one or an external damage. The Commission on examination of the petition and the annexed papers is not supposed to determine the technical nature of the damage. The complainant never in course of hearing opted for determination of the nature of the damage by some unbiased technical expert.    

In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties can in no way be substantiated in unequivocal terms. On the other hand, the opposite parties on being aware of the defect of the TV set arranged sending a technician to attend the issue. The complainant refused to sign the job sheet of the technician. OP 2 and OP 3 have also offered to repair the TV free of cost.   .     

Hence, it is     

ORDERED

 that the complaint case bearing no.35/2021 be and the same is partly allowed on contest.

The Commission hereby directs the opposite parties to take steps to repair the TV free of cost within 45 days of the date of this order.    The opposite party 2 and 3 will be jointly liable to comply with this order. In the event of failure to comply with this order the opposite parties will pay cost of Rs.10,000/- by depositing the same in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.