Date of filing: 11.10.2017                                                                Date of disposal: 24.02.2020

Complainant:              Sharmila Roy, W/o. Sushil Roy, resident of Near Sadhanpur Junior Basic School, Bidyasagar Pally, Harinarayanpur, PO. & PS: Burdwan, District: Burdwan, PIN -713 101.

- V E R S U S -

Opposite Party:           Reliance Digital, represented by its Manager, having its office at 74/68, Kalna Road, Badamtala, Opp. Head Post Office, Near Curzon Gate, PO. & PS: Burdwan, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.

Present:

           Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).

Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.

Hon’ble Member: Mr. Sailaranjan Das.

Appeared for the Complainant:     Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Sumanta Kumar Mondal.

J U D G E M E N T

            The brief fact of the case is that Sharmila Roy (hereinafter called complainant) purchased a 32-inch LED T.V. of SONIQ bearing Model No. E32W138-IN from Reliance Digital (hereinafter-called OP-1) on 24.05.2014. She paid an amount of Rs. 21,740.26 towards consideration money and for extended warranty for two years. The manufacturer warranty for the T.V. set was for one year i.e., from 24.05.2014 to 23.05.2015 and the extended warranty (RCP) was valid for two years thereafter, i.e., from 24.05.2015 to 23.05.2017. The amount paid towards extended warranty was Rs. 3,667=00. The T.V. set became dysfunctional from September, 2016. The complainant contacted the OP vide complaint No. 8006385540 and the OP deputed a mechanic to her house on 2^nd September, 2016. The mechanic after examining the T.V. set stated that the LED Panel of the T.V. had developed some defect.

But the OP did not send any mechanic to repair the said T.V. set. Complainant sent an e-mail to the OP on 13^th October, 2016 to which the OP replied on 14^th October, 2016 that they were processing the complaint for getting the T.V. set repaired. Thereafter despite several e-mails no action was taken by the OP till the expiry of the validity of RCP. Being aggrieved thereby, the instant complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-

1. Directing the OP either repair the TV set free of cost or replace the same with a new one of same feature or to pay a sum of Rs. 21,740.26 along with interest ,
2. Directing the OPs to pay Rs. 30,000=00 towards mental pain and agony and harassment suffered by the complainant,
3. Directing the OPs to pay Rs. 20,000=00 towards litigation cost.

The OP have filed written version rebutting all the allegations made by the complainant in the instant Consumer Complaint. It has been stated that all the allegations made by the complainant false and fabricated and are not based on facts.

It has further been stated that the RCP is guided by certain terms and conditions. The complainant was completely aware of all those terms and conditions. According to Clause 4g. IV of RCP, the OP offered the complainant compensation after deducting 70% of the purchase value but the complainant rejected to accept the amount. Thereafter, OP increased the compensation amount to Rs. 10,000=00 and issued a cheque of Indian Bank bearing No. 073074, dated 15.03.2017 according to depreciation policy. But the complainant rejected to take the said amount. Therefore, the OP was always willing to settle the issue with the complainant but the complainant has not cooperated with them. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and as such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the OP.

In reply to the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the complainant, OP submitted questionnaires and the complainant have filed reply to the questionnaires.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have heard Ld. Counsel for both sides, perused all the relevant records. On perusal of the receipt issued by OP-1 at the time of purchase of the TV set an amount of Rs. 21,740=00 was charged. As per the break up the price of the TV set was Rs. 18,990=00 and an amount of Rs. 916.75 has been shown in negative figure which implies that the OP actually charged (Rs. 3667 – 916.75) Rs. 2,750.25. This has not been pointed out by either of the parties. Be that as it may, the admitted fact is that the complainant purchased the TV set from the OP and the same TV set was under the normal warranty provided by the complainant for one year. Thereafter, it was under the extended warranty for two years. Since the TV set developed defect in September, 2016, it was very much within the period of extended warranty. The complainant has annexed the customer copy of the RCP. In that copy the terms and conditions for the RCP has not been mentioned. However, the OP has annexed a copy of terms and conditions based on which the RCP was issued. As per No. 9 (iv) of the terms and conditions, in the event of product/equipment being not repairable, it is binding on the customer to accept the Depreciation method of solution offered by Company. The maximum liability of the Company is restricted to the purchase value of the (this) said contract.” Armed with this condition the OP have argued that since as per the condition given they are liable to pay depreciated value of the claim the amount of Rs. 10,000=00 offered by them in full and final satisfaction claim made by the complainant, there is no deficiency in service. However, on perusal of all the documents it is observed that nowhere the OP has spelt out the rationale behind the calculation of the depreciated value. The TV set became unserviceable after two years. For that the OP have deducted 75% of the actual value as depreciation. This amounts to absurdity because if we go by a standard depreciation of 10% then in two years it should have been 20%. In addition, the very fact that as per the terms and conditions of RCP the Company has made provisions of payment of the purchase value of the product also becomes an absurdity. The very fact that this provision has been made means in certain cases the Company may pay the full amount even though the product has been used for more than one year. Therefore, in the instant case, arriving at an amount after deducting 75% of the actual value of the TV set is completely arbitrary and as such, this amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the OP should pay 80% of the actual value of the TV set to the complainant.

            Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 205/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-Reliance Digital with a direction to the Op to pay Rs. 15192=00 (Rs. Fifteen thousand one hundred and ninety two) only [(Rs. 18990 – 3798 (20%)]as value of the TV set to the complainant within 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this award and the OP is also directed to pay Rs. 6,000=00 (Rs. Six thousand) only towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 3,000=00 (Rs. Three thousand) only as litigation cost within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                           (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                  President

    (Sailaranjan Das)                                                                 DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

                 Member

   DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman                                                                                                                       

                                                        (Sailaranjan Das)                          (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                         Member                                          Member

                                         DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman           DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman