Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/103

Ritesh Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kumar Sales - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Chaudhry

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

This complaint has been filed by Ritesh Kumar Singh for claim to replace the defect T.V. with new one same make Model No. and compensation of Rs.2000/- for harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-

2          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Colour Micromax T.V. model No. 50L7550FDH on 26.09.2016 from O.P. No.1. The company has provided warranty and there was insurance with CPP Asset Care on payment of premium. But the T.V. stated giving trouble due to manufacturer defect within 4 months of its purchase.

            Complainant lodged complaint on 20.01.2017 with O.P. No.1 for replacement of T.V. board. It is assured by O.P. No.1 that the board shall be replaced within a week. On 20.02.2017 O.P. No.1 asked the complainant to reach at Quick Service Centre as a new T.V. Board has reached there. On 30.03.2017 the complainant reached to Quick Service Centre and it was said that the panel of T.V. is broken for which quick service centre demanded Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant opposed for the payment as the T.V. was insured with CPP Asset Care.

3          Complainant has filed following documents.

            Anx-1- Copy of Invoice.

            Anx-2- Copy of legal Notice.

            Anx-3- Copy of Asset Care.

4          O.P. No.1 appeared in this case on 20-09-2017 and filed his W.s. on 16-02-2018 stating there in that O.P. No.2 is only authorised to replace the T.V. set and for repairing. It is further submitted that O.P. No.1 is already referred the complaint to the authorised service centre of the O.P. No.2 and hence subsequent events in his shop has been denied.

 O.P. No.2 is also appeared on 06-10-2017 but has not filed any W.S. and debarred from filing W.S.

FINDINGS

5          Heard the parties. We perused the record. It is admitted that T.V. had been purchased by the complainant on the payment of Rs. 36,000/-. They said T.V. was not working after 4 month as the complaint has been lodged but the O.P. has not replaced the T.V. on the ground that panel of T.V. is broken. The complainant has not lodged any insurance claim against CPP asset care, reason best known to him

6          We direct to O.P. No.1 M/s Kumar Sales to replace the said T.V. with new one or to pay Rs. 18,000/- (50% of the value) along with Rs. 1,000/- for mental harassment and Rs 1000/- as legal expenses within 60 days of this order failing which O.P. has to pay interest @ 10% per annum till realization.

            M/s Kumar Sales is entitled to recover the price paid to the complainant from CPP Asset care, the insurer of the product sold.