Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/18/2021

Trilochan Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mital Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

P.Jena

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal COMMISSION, KEONJHAR.

C.C. Case No. 18/2021

            Trilochan Mahanta,aged about 29 years

            S/o- Late Bansidhar Mahanta,

At- Nuagaon,

PO- Rajnagar, PS: Turmiunga,

Dist.-Keonjhar. …………………………. Complainant

 

Vrs

1. Mital Electronics, New Market

Near Odisha Gramya Bank, Keonjhar,

At/PO: Keonjhargarh, PS: Town

Dist: Keonjhar

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
6.  

      New Delhi-110001                                    ……………Opposite Parties

 

Present :-

President, I/c- Sri Biranchi Narayan Patra.

Member       -  Sri Jiban Krushna Behera. 

 

Counsels

For the Complainant:-P. Jena & Associates

For the O.P. No.1.:-S. Das

O.P. No.1:-M.N. Sharma

Date of filing of Case:-6.4.2021

Date of Order                 :-   3.3.2023.

 

Complaint U/S 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Mr. Jiban Krushna Behera, Member

            Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has purchased one Samsung Let TV of Model No. UA43TU7200KXXXL 4K  by paying full and final consideration amount of Rs.39,900/- and obtained relevant documents from O.P. No.1. The said TV started showing problem after 3 months of purchase so the complaint lodged complain in helpline of O.P. No.2. The service engineer of O.P. No. 2 replaced mother board of the TV but the problem was not solved. The complainant again lodged complain with O.P. No. 1 and 2  for repairing/replacement of the TV. Even after 4 months of complain the problem was not attended by neither O.P.s.  The complainant also alleges that the LED TV has manufacturing defects. Aggrieved by the inactions of the O.Ps the complainant filed this complaint before the Commission and prayed for cost of TV of Rs.39,900/-,, compensation for mental agony and harassment Rs.50,000/-, for business loss Rs.5,000/- and  for cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-.

 

The complainant relied upon the following documents:-

1. Photocopy of warranty card
2. Photocopy of Invoice
3. Photocopy of communication with OP No.2

 

On the above complaint the Commission admitted the case and  issued notice to Opposite Parties. O.P. No 1 and 2 appeared through their counsels. O.P. No.2 submitted written version. However, though O.P. No.1 appeared though their counsel and filed several petitions for time to file written version but choose not to file any version for  which O.P. No. 1 was set ex-parte.

           

The O.P.No. 2 in their written/evidence submitted that they sale their products on a principal to principal basis after through checking of their products. They further submitted that their toll free number for customer service is working 24X7 through out the year to attend customers and denied all allegations contained in the complaint. They also submitted that the case is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed material facts before the commission. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 15,711/- towards cost of mother board to the service engineer   which was broken due to misuse.  They further submitted that in the absence an expert report the complaint petition deserves to e dismissed and relied on the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in K.L Arora Vs Groovy Communications (2002) 3CPF 92(NC) for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submission of manufacturing defects in the TV set. However the O.P. No.2 admitted that their role is limited upto product quality and warranty benefits of the LED TV set in question.

           

On the above situation it is necessary to attend the following issues before passing any order.

 

1. Whether the Opposite Party/s have made any deficiency in service?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?

 

FINDINGS

Perused the case record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased purchased one Samsung Let TV of Model No. UA43TU7200KXXXL 4K  by paying  consideration amount of Rs.39,900/- . from the records it is also revealed that there are several communications from the complaint to O.P. No.2 regarding problem in TV and there is bargaining in cost of spares. From those communications it seems that O.P. No. 2 has proposed for 25% rebate in spare parts which the complainant did not agree. From the submissions of the OP it also revealed that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 15,711/- towards cost of mother board to the service engineer during the warranty period. Question arose why the complaint has paid the cost of mother board during the warrant period if the TV was not mishandled. The complaint has only mentioned that the service engineer has changed the mother board on complain.  Though the written version/evidence was properly served to  the complaint but during the course of hearing the complaint has not objected to this submission. So we hold to believe that the complaint has suppressed this material fact before the commission.

 

 Taking into consideration of all the above facts we hold to believe that the O.Ps. have not made any deficiency in service. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as sought for.

ORDERS

The consumer complaint is dismissed on contest. The parties are to bear their own cost.

Pronounced the order in the open Commission on this  3^rd  day of  March 2023 under seal of the Commission.

      I agree.

                                                                                 

 

Member, I/c.                                                                    President,

     DCDRC, Keonjhar                                                           DCDRC, Keonjhar   

           

 

Computerized on my dictation and corrected by me.

 

.2

Member, I/c.