SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Non-delivery of defective T.V. set of the complainant are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant purchased one 20” LED Colour TV from OP No.1 Trishakti Distributors by paying an amount of Rs. 10,300/- on dtd. 31.10.2013 and OpNo.2 is the manufacturer of said TV set. Complainant obtained a money receipt/cash memo in support of the purchase and provided with the warranty book wherein it is mentioned that warranty of the set is valid for twelve months from the date of purchase. On dtd. 15.06.2014 the TV set purchased by complainant did not function accordingly the TV set purchased by complainant did not function accordingly the TV set produced before OpNo.1 for its due repair. Op No.1 intentionally delaying the repair told the complainant on dt. 20.7.2014 that complainant has to pay Rs. 9,000/- towards cost of repair of the TV set. Being aggrieved in such demand for repair of TV set complainant issued an Advocate’s notice to the Op No.1 which the OpNo.1 did not receive, hence the complainant before the Forum with a prayer to get a new TV of same price and model or refund the purchase amount of Rs. 10,300/- with 9 percent interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant for such acts of the Opp.parties.
3. Being noticed OP No.1 Trishakti Distributors, Pattamundai refused to accept the notice, hence set ex-parte vide Order No. 3 dtd. 11.9.2014 of this Forum. Though OpNo.2 the manufacturer received the notice did not prefer to appear into the dispute accordingly set ex-parte bearing order NO.6 dtd. 11.11.2014.
4. Heard the ex-parte submissions advanced by complainant himself who recited the complaint. To strengthen his case complainant filed self attested photocopy of Challan No. 2750 which is marked as Ext. 1 and photocopy of warranty books marked as Ext. 2. During submissions this Forum wanted to know form the complainant that whether any receipt has been issued to him by OpNo.1 refused to give any receipt of handing over of TV set and Op No.1 assured within 2/3 days and believing the said version complainant left the TV set on the workshop of the OpNo.1.
Considering the submissions of complainant and legal position of the Opp.parties, we believe and rely the version of the complainant. The most disgusting is the non-attendance of Op No.2 who is a reputed Company operating throughout the country by producing and marketing consumer products should not deliberately avoid the process of Fora’s which are meant for the benefits of a common man or consumer. Though it is fact that Op No.2 manufacturer was not informed by complainant-consumer regarding the allegations against OpNo.1 dealer. If the Op No.2 would have been appeared into the dispute could have enlighten this Forum in connection to grievance of the complainant-consumer. It is primary duty of the manufacturing company to look into the Op No.1-dealer believing the credentials of OP No.2 manufacturing company. Such negligent attitude of the Op No.2-company is treated as a Unfair trade Practice alongwith Op No.1 both are liable for their same acts and equally the complainant deserves compensation and sympathy of this forum as complainant is illiterate and rustic villager who had purchased a TV set with a great hope to get a good service and performance. Accordingly, the Ops are jointly and severally liable for unfair trade practice.
O R D E R
Hence, it is ordered that OpNo.1-Dealer will return the TV set of the complainant with good running condition and upto the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is further directed that both the OPP. Parties will pay Rs. 1000/-(Rupees One thousand)only each to the complainant for the mental agony along with cost of litigation RS. 500/-(Rupees Five hundred) only to be paid by the OpNo.1-Dealer to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which Rs. 50/- will be charged per day for the delayed period.
The complaint is allowed inpart on ex-parte.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 29th day of November,2014.
