West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/35/2019

SMT. GITA BASFORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Anandamela Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

JANMEJAY GANGULY

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member.      

FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT

This complaint U/S 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.) - 1) M/S ANANDAMELA ENTERPRISE, Bidhan Road, Opposite of Kanchanjungha Stadium FOCIN Gate, P.O. & P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling- 734001, West Bengal who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.) and ex-parte against O.P. No. 2) SANSUI, Flat No. A-1, 14^th Floor, Chatterjee International Center, 33 A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071, West Bengal,  O.P. No. 3) M/S NEW WORLD TEL, Ganesh Bhawan, Rishi Aurobinda Road, P.O. – Siliguri Bazar, P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling- 734005, West Bengal.

 

                                    The case of the complainant as per her complaint is as follows-

The complainant argued in her plaint that on 08.11.2016 she purchased one 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI with 05 (Five) years warranty from the O.P. No.1 for an amount of Rs. 37, 500/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) only, vide Invoice No. AE/CM/80/16-17 and the O.P. No.2 was the manufacturer of the product and the O.P. No.3 was the Service Center of the O.P. No.2 but after installation at complainant’s house, from 06.07.2018 the said T.V. stopped functioning, e.g., the T.V. screen stopped working and turned into full black. The complainant also added that she informed the matter to the O.P. No.3, the service center of O.P. No.2, and the complaint no. - KOL0507180129 was provided to her by the O.P. No.3. The complainant also argued that on 06.07.2018 the technician visited her house although the technician failed to bring back the LED T.V. in working condition but he made a job sheet bearing no.- 15331 and in spite of warranty coverage had charged Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty) only for servicing the said T.V. The complainant also argued that the O.P. No.3 informed her that the required parts for repairing of the said LED T.V. was not with them and some reasonable time was required for the same but for the next two months the O.P. No.3 avoided her by giving date after date. The complainant also argued that on 18.09.2018 again the complainant lodged a complaint to the O.P. No.3 bearing no. - KOL1809180084 and again the O.P. No.3 sent the technician to her house but did not resolve the problem and the O.P. No.3 informed the complainant that the required parts were unavailable and that’s why said LED T.V. could not be brought back in working condition. The complainant argued in her plaint that the O.P. No.2 had made a faulty product and the O.P. No.1 sold such a product and the O.P. No.3 had violated the terms and conditions as well as policy of the warranty by charging Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty) only from the complainant. The complainant also added that after that several times she contacted with O.P. No.3 but did not get any result and finding no other alternative she lodged this case.             

 

The prayers of complainant are as follows :

 

1. To pass an order directing the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 to return back the price of the said LED T.V. which Rs. 37, 500/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) only along with interest rate of 12% to the complainant.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant for physical and mental harassment.
3. To pass an order directing the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the complainant for litigation cost.
4. Any other relief/ reliefs to which the complainant may be found legally entitled to.

List of Documents filed by the complainant:

1.   Original copy as well as photocopy of Cash Memo.
2.   Original copy as well as photocopy of Warranty Card.
3.   Original copy as well as photocopy o f Job Sheet.

 

            The O.P. No. 2) SANSUI, Flat No. A-1, 14^th Floor, Chatterjee International Center, 33 A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071, West Bengal  and O.P. No. 3) M/S NEW WORLD TEL, Ganesh Bhawan, Rishi Aurobinda Road, P.O. – Siliguri Bazar, P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling- 734005, West Bengal declared ex- parte vide order no. 07, dated 09.09.2019. On behalf of the Opposite Party (O.P.)- 1) M/S ANANDAMELA ENTERPRISE, Bidhan Road, Opposite of Kanchanjungha Stadium FOCIN Gate, P.O. & P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling- 734001, West Bengal who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.) and as per their W.V.s the case is as follows.

 

            The O.P. No.1 argued in his W.V. that the O.P. No.1 was a distributor of different electronic company including SANSUI and as a selling agent the O.P. No.1 sold the said T.V. on 08.11.2016 to the complainant and according to complainant’s statement the said T.V. was functioning properly but on 06.07.2018, i.e., after two years the said T.V. stopped functioning. The O.P. No.1 also added that according to the warranty, the O.P. No.3 who was the authorized Service Center of the O.P. No.2 was liable to repair the said T.V. within warranty period and there was no fault on the part of the O.P. No.1 and there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1 and the allegation of unfair trade practice by the O.P. No.1 was false and baseless. The O.P. No.1 also argued that he was nothing but a confirming party regarding sale of T.V. as such no liability arose against the O.P. No.1.  

 

List of documents filed by the O.P. No.1 are as follows :

 

1) Photocopy of the reply of Legal Notice, dated 23/05/2017.

2) Photocopy of Postal Receipt.

3) Photocopy of Acknowledgement, dated 23/05/2017.

4) Photocopy of Service Centre Inspection Report, dated 16/12/2016.      

 

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

 

Points for consideration

 

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?

           

Decision with reasonS:-

 

                        All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and written version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length.

The complainant resides in the jurisdiction of Siliguri, Darjeeling and the O.P. No.1 and 3 are also carrying their business in Siliguri, Darjeeling. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consume Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.

 

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.

 

In this instant case, it is very much clear from the evidence that on 08.11.2016 she purchased one 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI with 05 (Five) years warranty from the O.P. No.1 for an amount of Rs. 37, 500/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) only, vide Invoice No. AE/CM/80/16-17 and the O.P. No.2 was the manufacturer of the product and the O.P. No.3 was the Service Center of the O.P. No.2. So, it is very much clear that the complainant was purchased the said 50 inch. LED T.V. from O.P.1 and thus this Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer in this case and as per the C.P Act,1986 and C.P. Act, 2019 this Commission has jurisdiction to decide this case.

 

In this instant case, as per evidence of the complainant it is very much clear that the said 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI found defective within warranty period and the defect was not resolved by O.P. No.3. So, it is the duty of the O.P.s to supply a product with a good condition because when a consumer always buys a product from a reputed company like SANSUI with an expectation for delivery of a good quality of product and service as well as better offerings from the company but in this instant case the company failed to provide a quality product and also failed to deliver his best services to his consumer. It is fact that the said 50 inch. LED T.V. was under the coverage of warranty period and in this context it was the duty of the O.P.s to deliver their best service to his consumer and this Commission has no doubt to hold that the O.P.s did not provide their best service to his consumer. The technician of O.P. No.3 visited complainant’s house although the technician failed to bring back the LED T.V. in working condition but he made a job sheet bearing no.- 15331 and in spite of warranty coverage had charged Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty) only for servicing the said T.V. Here, the O.P. No.3 had violated the terms and conditions as well as policy of the warranty by charging Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty) only from the complainant when the said product was under warranty coverage which leads to unfair trade practice.

 

So, as per the above discussion it is very much clear that there was a deficiency of service from the part of O.P.s and this Commission has no doubt that there was a deficiency of services from the part of the O.P.s. In this instance case, the O.P.s are jointly and severally liable. The O.P.s are directed to refund the purchased amount of the said 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI with a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the said 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI by an Account Payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for litigation cost and the O.P.s are also directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order. The O.P.s are entitled to get liberty to take back the said defective 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI with their own cost.

   

Hence, it is,

 

O R D E R E D

 

That the Consumer Case No. 35/2019 be and same is allowed in contest against the Opposite Party (O.P.) - 1) M/S ANANDAMELA ENTERPRISE, Bidhan Road, Opposite of Kanchanjungha Stadium FOCIN Gate, P.O. & P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling- 734001, West Bengal who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.) and ex-parte against O.P. No. 2) SANSUI, Flat No. A-1, 14^th Floor, Chatterjee International Center, 33 A, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata – 700071, West Bengal,  O.P. No. 3) M/S NEW WORLD TEL, Ganesh Bhawan, Rishi Aurobinda Road, P.O. – Siliguri Bazar, P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling- 734005, West Bengal. In this instance case, the O.P.s are jointly and severally liable in this case.

 

The O.P.s are directed to either repair or replace the said 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI or refund the purchase amount of the said 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI with a simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the said 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI by an Account Payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled to get a simple interest of 6 % per annum from the date of this order till the realization of total amount. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for litigation cost and the O.P.s are also directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order. The O.P.s are entitled to get liberty to take back the said defective 50 inch. LED T.V. SKW50FH16XAF, FHD, V59C- NC, S/ No. 110816110289001379 of SANSUI with their own cost.   

 Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.