DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2019.
Date of hearing : 14.02.2023.
Date of order : 21.03.2023.
Dated the 21st day of March 2023.
Sritam Mohapatra, S/o:-Akhaya Kumar Mohapatra,
At:-Koranta, Po:-Radiahat,
P.S:- Bhadrak (R), Dist:-Bhadrak. ………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
- Proprietor of M/s Biswal Sales Corporation,
At:- by-pass, Chhapulia, Po:- Bhadrak,
P.S:- Bhadra (T), Dist:-Bhadrak.
2nd Floor,Arnapurna Complex
Plot No-263, Bapujinagar
Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
. .…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for Complainant : In person
Counsel for Opp. Parties : Mozahid Akhtar Khan, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T.
Smt.MADHUSMITA SWAIN, MEMBER.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs.
“Replace the defective schedule LED TVby new one with same size & price or refund Rs.18,600/- the price of LED TV to the Complainant with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation and mental agony”.
Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant purchased SANSUI LED TV (Model SJX32HB) having Sl. No. 110815110283313569 from M/s Biswal Sales Corporation (O.P.No.1) the Authorized Dealer for Rs.18,600/- on 21.10.2015 as invoice No.2370. The product had 4 years warranty period from the date of purchase including extended Warranty of 3 (three) years mentioned in “ Extended Warranty card”. The LED Tv showed defect & which is within the extended warranty period. The complainant purchased the product for the use of his family. Immediately the complainant reported to M/s Biswal Sales Corporation O.P. No.1 defect of the LED Tv. On 3.6.2019 the complainant informed and requested O.P No.1 to repair his LED Tv in written. On 10.6.2019 the complainant gave reminder O.P no.1to repair his LED Tv otherwise he will take legal against him. The LED TV was not functioning till filing of the complaint hence this complaint.
Complainant filed following documents in support of his case.
- Xerox copy of Invoice No. 2370 dtd.21.10.2015,
- Xerox copy of Extended Warranty Card of the TV,
- Xerox copy of Letter dated 3.6.2019 to Biswal Sales Corporation,
- Xerox copy of Reminder Letter dated 10.6.2019 to Biswal Sales Corporation,
- Xerox copy postal receipt
- Xerox copy of Postal Tracking Report.
Notice is issued to O.P. s on 19.6.2019 .O.P. No.2 did not appear before this commission. The O.P. No.1 the Biswal Sales Corporation appeared before this commission and stated that, the complainant has not specified the exact date of cause of action arose. The O.P. No.1 is an authorized dealer of many home appliances company like LG, Samsung, Sony, SANSUI & Videocon etc. The complainant bought a LED TV of SANSUI company from his shop. O.P. No.1 has no authority to give service to purchasers after buying the appliances. The manufacturing companies have separated the sales & services system & they provide a customer care toll free number for providing services to the customer. After sales of a product the dealer has no responsibility for the service or repair of the said appliances. On the basis of pleadings & documents available on record the following issues are framed.
Issue No.1 .
Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
It seen from document on record that the complainant has purchased an SANSUI LED TV for Rs.18,600/- for own use on payment of consideration. So the complainant is a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986. So Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Issue No.2.
Whether this Commission has got jurisdiction to try this case & whether the case has been filed within time limit ?
The complainant is a permanent resident of this Commission & the O.P. has also business set up within this Commission’s jurisdiction.
The value of claim & dispute being Rs.18,600/- is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. As per written complaint on 3.6.2019 the cause of action arose on that day and the complaint is also within the time limit i.e. 2 years. So this Commission has got jurisdiction to try this case.
Issue No. 3.
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
It is undisputed that LED TV was purchased from O.P. No.1 for consideration of Rs.18,600/- on 21.10.2015. After use the product became defective & the complainant complained regarding defect of the LED TV in written on 3.6.2019 and also gave another reminder letter on 10.6.2019 to repair his LED TV. But the Opposite Party No.1 neither send any technician nor arrange any alternative to repair the LED TV.The LED TV became unuseful for the complainant since then. As the product has defect within the warranty or extended warranty period the O.P. should repair the product within free of cost. Rather O.P. No.1 stated that as he is an authorized dealer & his responsibility is to sell the product which is not a justiciable reason, the O.P.No.1 can co-ordinate with the O.P. No-2 and manufacturing unit to rectify the product but the O.P.No.1 try to escape that he has no role with repair of the product.
So the O.P.No.1 & 2 jointly liable for negligence on their part which creates deficiency of service on their part.
O R D E R.
In the result, complaint be and same is allowed against O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the defective SANSUI LED TV with a new one of the same make, model & size or better model & size and if it fails to replace the LED TV shall refund the cost of LED TV which is Rs.18,600/-. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be carried out within 30 days from receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 21st day of March 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
