In the Court of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I

CDF-1/Case no.100/2007

Smt. Soumi Sinha                                                     …...    Complainant

vs.

L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and others             ….. Opposite parties

Present :  Sri A.K. Das,  President

                Sri L.K. Banerjee,  Member

Order no.   13     dt. 09/07/2007

          The issue involved in this consumer complaint is whether the petitioner Smt. Soumi Sinha is entitled to compensation for deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2.

          The facts lead to the dispute are that the petitioner had purchased one telephone set walkly model no.350T manufactured by o.p. no.1 from o.p. no.5 authorized franchise         vide cash memo no.283 dt.21.10.05 at Rs.2100/-, annex-A. The petitioner was given to understand that he manufacturer would replace the telephone within one year if it became defective.

          It is alleged by petitioner that after expiry of 11 and 6 months petitioner approached the company for repairing her telephone and / or to replace it. The representative Amit Das of o.p. advised her to come on any other day on the plea, mechanics is not being available.

          Thereafter on 12.12.06 petitioner againt met the company as per their desire but they demanded Rs.2116/- for repairing. The estimate is marked ‘B’. The petitioner realized that it is a unlawful trade practice on the part of company. Hence petitioner moved this forum.

          O.p. nos. 1 and 2 in the w/v have contended that the petitioner approached them on 12.12.06 after crossing of he warranty period and thereby they submitted the estimate for repair, annex-B. Petitioner had maximum warranty period till 20.10.06 and thereby there was no unlawful practice on their part and the claim of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

          It is evident from the record that the petition and the affidavit what he petitioner likes to mean on expiry of eleven and six months. Petitioner does not disclose the date when he approached first for repair of the telephone wherefrom it could have been ascertained that he asked the o.ps. for repair or exchange the telephone within the warranty period. On the next date i.e. 12.12.06 petitioner met the o.ps. after expiry and warranty period and the o.p. submitted the estimate for repair. Thereby it cannot be said there was any unlawful practice on the part of the o.ps. In view of the fact the present consumer complaint is devoid of any merit and no relief as prayed for could be awarded in this case. Thereby the present consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Hence,

                   Ordered,

          The consumer complaint is dismissed on contest without cost.

          Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Member                                                                                   President