Orissa

Rayagada

CC/318/2016

Sri Sana Jagasidh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Doordarshan Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Self

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                     C.C. Case  No.318/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Sri Sana Jagdish Kumar,S/o Sri Sana Someswar Rao, Vidya Nagar, Rayagada, Dist.             Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ………Complainant

Versus

1.  M/s Doordarshan Enterprises, Rayagada, Rep.by Sri Chandra Mouli Senapati, Son of Soura Senapati, Station Road, Rayagada, Po/Ps/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.
2. The Manager, Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office, East Bhubaneswar,At-5/1 Bhoi Nagar,Unit-9,3rd Floor, Sachivalaya Marg,Bhubaneswar,Odisha,751002.
3. The Manager, M/s Sony India Private Limited, Regd. Office, A 31,Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi,110044.                                                                                         ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Self

For the O.Ps: Set Exparte.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one Sony LED TV  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.82,800/- on 12.10.2014  vide invoice No.29917 but  after  two months of   its  purchase the   said TV   set  was found defective and it could not be used properly for which  the complainant approached the OP 1 and the OP 1 sent  service technician to rectify the defects but he failed to rectify the defects.  The complainant also purchased extended warranty  for a period of two years  from the date of expiry date  for Rs.7,500/-  and the same is valid till 12.2016  and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to  refund the cost of TV extended warranty amount  with interest    and  award compensation for mental agony  and such other relief as the forum deem fit and proper . Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed, the O.ps neither  appeared   nor f filed written  as such the Ops were set exparte and we proceeded the matter in absence of  any written.

                                        

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the O.ps have sold a defective  TV set  to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant of enjoyment of the TV set  since the date of  its purchase  which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

Now we have to see whether there was any negligence of the Ops  in providing  after sale service  to the complainant as alleged ?

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the TV set found defective after its purchase    and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the TV set  require  servicing since  the date of its purchase, then it can be presumed that it is defective one and if the defective TV set  is sold to the complainant , the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the TV set  which was purchased by the complainant had developed  defects and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning during the warranty period. It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and purchased the TV set  with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the article. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of using the TV set  for such  and the defecates were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from time to time from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to refund  amount    the TV set  and pay cost of Rs.1500/-   within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to refund the cost of the mobile set  with interest  @  12%  p.a. . Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 29^th day December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

                      Member                                                                                     President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Xerox copy of Retail Invoice.
2. Xerox copy of  Warranty Card.
3. Xerox copy of Warranty Se5rvice Coupon
4. Service Job Sheet.
5. Extended Warranty registration form

By the Opp.Party:  Nil                                                                          President