CONSUMER CASE NO. 03/2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Dr. Monzurul Hoque filed this case in the year 2021 while he was working as Senior Medical & Health Officer at Katigorah Model Hospital. Briefly stated his case is as follows :- The opposite party ( in short, the O.P.) M/S G. Tech Audios, Tamilnadu sent an advertisement through its website of DTS/AC3 5.1 CH Decoder Board and on being convinced the complainant placed an order through online for supply of 5.1 HDMI Decoder ( DTS AC3 Dolby) vide order ID No. 3969 in consideration of Rs.5,196/- only and accordingly the O.P. delivered the product which was received by the complainant on 26/08/2020. But during installation of the product it was discovered that the product was not functioning and also it was found that the product was not having original display connectors. Thereafter the complainant informed the matter to the O.P. over mobile phone and then the O.P. requested him to send back the product with an assurance that it would be replaced. Accordingly the product was sent back on 04/09/2020 . Though the O.P. received the same but they did not replace it taking the plea that the product is not an warranty item. The complainant then had to issue legal notice. But when all attempts went in vain this case was filed by the complainant praying for passing an order directing the O.P. to repay the amount of Rs.5,196/- and for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing disservice and for payment of cost of the proceeding.
The O.P. filed written statement stating, interalia, that there is no cause of action, that the case is not maintainable etc. It is stated by the O.P. that all the products sold on its website are sold after testing before sale and also the goods are not covered by any warranty. After sending the product back on 04/09/2020 the complainant brought the defects to the notice of the O.P. Further version of the O.P. is that after receiving the product back they found that the cable connectors/ports were damaged and also some kind of glue was used on the board and it was found that main IC heats up which would occur only if the board was improperly handled. It has been claimed by the O.P. that the product by itself do not work but comes into operation only if installed under specific conditions which needs professional mind and the complainant having no knowledge or professional experience of electronic engineering had mishandled the product. The O.P. has also denied the fact that the product was returned on their request. Under the circumstances it has been prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In support of the case the complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1 and exhibited some documents. On the other hand, from the side of Opposite Party no any evidence has been adduced. Thereafter the complainant submitted written argument. Also heard the oral argument put forward by the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the entire evidence on record. Let us now appreciate the materials below.
In his evidence PW-1 i.e., the complainant has stated that the Respondent/ O.P. party M/S G. Tech Audios, Tamilnadu sent an advertisement through its website of DTS/AC3 of the product 5.1 CH Decoder Board and on being convinced he placed an order through online for supply of 5.1 HDMI Decoder ( DTS AC3 Dolby) vide order ID No. 3969 in consideration of Rs.5,196/- only and accordingly the O.P. delivered the product which was received by him on 26/08/2020. Further statement of PW-1 is that during installation of the said product it has been discovered that the product is not functioning and it failed to be powered up . Also it was found that the product was not having original display connectors and the same is a duplicate product glued on its both board and display side. It is stated by PW-1 that he informed the matter to the O.P. over mobile phone and then the O.P. requested him to send back the product with an assurance that it would replace the same. Accordingly the product was sent back on 04/09/2020 and the O.P. received the same. But they did not replace it taking the plea that the product is not an warranty item. It has been claimed by PW-1 that the O.P. actually supplied duplicate product and on being cheated by the O.P. he issued legal notice through his lawyer but the O.P. raised baseless allegations. PW-1 has exhibited several documents vide Exts.-1 to 6. On the other hand, though no any evidence has been adduced by the O.P. side but in their written statement they have claimed that all the products are sold after testing before sale and also the goods are not covered by any warranty. It is stated that the complainant brought the defects of the product to their knowledge only after sending the product back on 04/09/2020. Further version of the O.P. is that after receiving the product back they found that the cable connectors/ports were damaged and also some kind of glue was used on the board and it was found that main IC got heat up which would occur only if the board was improperly handled. According to the O.P. , the product by itself do not work but comes into operation only if installed under specific conditions which needs professional mind and the complainant having no knowledge or professional experience of electronic engineering had mishandled the product.
That the alleged product had no warranty this fact is not disputed in this case. There is allegation and counter allegations in the case in respect of the product. Though the Complainant has averred that the product was not having original display connectors and the same is a duplicate product glued on its both board and display side but this fact has been disputed by the O.P. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to prove the said fact in the case. There is nothing before us from which we can determine the actual condition of the product at the time of receiving the same by the complainant. No video recording of the product at the time of removal of its packing has been submitted in the case. The complainant has failed to establish his claims in the case.
In view of the above discussion of the materials on record the case stands dismissed. No costs. The judgment is delivered on this 6th day of April’2023 under our seal and signature.
