By P.K.Nayak,MALL.B, Member.
Facts of the case:-
The complainant filed complaint on dt.17.12.2021,U/S 35 of C.P Act, 2019, praying for a direction to O.Ps to refund the price of his purchased TV set or to replace a new one of the same brand with free from defects and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony ,negligence and deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.
That the complainant had purchased a LED TV set on dt.20.04.2021 of Sony India Pvt.Ltd, vide Model No. KDL-43W6600, serial No.8087917, product 8D No.12442301 covering a warranty of one year from the date of purchase by cash, which cost a total amount of Rs.41,000/-with GST Tax Invoice vide No.A’/21-22’127 from O.P no.1 i.e M/S A One Electronics.
That just after installation that is from the very beginning the TV had defects so the complainant can not able to used to see it and registered complain before the O.Ps on dt.20.05.2021 vide request ID 65896127 but after one month, the O.Ps sent its technical expert/service engineer to rectify the defects but he could not, hence sent it to service center at Sambalpur for its repairing than after a period of 3 month the O.Ps delivered the repaired TV. Again just after one month of it the TV could not function due different defects. He further complained to O.Ps on 23.10.202.Thus the problem of defects could not rectified though repaired by service engineer and it is within the warranty period of TV set. Due to repeated disorder/defects, being aggrieved and harassed the complainant write further to the O.Ps by registered post on dt.22.10.2021 but the O.Ps remained silent. The complainant had purchased it by loan from Bajaj Finance for which he has been paying interest without using the TV set. The complainant has submitted documents regarding Tax invoice, warranty Registered postal slip of letters to O.Ps and affidavit as evidence in support of his petition that the TV set is a defective one as even after repairing it could not functioned well as the O.P could not provided efficient timely and so unnecessary delay in lead to deficiency and negligence of service.
On the other hand the O.Ps in its written submission admits regarding purchased price of TV set, warranty and defects in TV set but denies and objects the complain of willful negligence of unnecessary delay in service but due to state imposed “Lock Down”. The complaint was registered by O.Ps and promptly attended by the O.P no.3 the service engineer vide job sheet no.j11058330 on dt.24.06.2021.He inspected and replaces LSBAR-LEXTAR LB4305B part for proper functioning of TV set. Further on complaint on dt.23.10.2021 the O.P again inspected and replaced the same for proper functioning of TV set and the repairing service is done on dt.12.11.2021.But the complainant refused to take the delivery of TV set with an intention to extort money and unreasonably to replace the TV set with compensation money and hence instituted complaint. So the complaint petition is liable to be dismiss.
Findings:
The complainant complained before O.P on dt.20.05.2021, but the O.P responded after one month i.e on date 24.06.2021, further the O.P suppressed when they finally delivered the repaired TV set i.e, after how many months to the complainant but avoided it by expressing the circumstances/situation which clearly established negligence in timely service, further just after one month of repair the complainant complained regarding disorder of TV set, on dt.23.10.2021,on which the O.Ps claimed to rectify the defects but not educed any evidence in support of complete repair as the O.Ps not contacted to complainant for delivery of the same. From this we observed that the TV set repeatedly showing defects due to either inherent manufacturing disorder or due to faulty ‘imperfect, deficient or of in adequate quality services provided by the service engineer of company, i.e O.P No.3.Thus without perfect rectification of defects there is no value of repair or replacement of parts as it is unusable which leads to negligence and deficiency of service by O.Ps. So liable of defective products.
ORDER
On the above context of facts, evidence findings and circumstances the complainant petition is allowed partly with contest, cost and compensation.
We directed the O.P no.2 to replace a new TV set of same model or to refund the full amount of Rs.41,000/-( Rupees Forty One Thousand) only the cost of TV set , and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only for cost of litigation. We directed the O.P no.2 to comply the same within a period of 30 days from the pronouncement of order. In case of non compliance 12% interest per annum of the total awarded amount will be paid by O.P No.2 to complainant till realisation.
Order pronounced in open commission. Seal and signature of the Commission this the day of 13th February, 2023.
The final order is signed and sealed and computerised as to my dictation. Copy be supplied free of cost, if applied for.
