Orissa

Cuttak

CC/161/2019

Prasanta Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gupta Distributor - Opp.Party(s)

A Tripathy

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                    C.C.161/2019

           Prasanta Kumar Patra,

S/O:Late Raghunath Patra,

At:Mahammadia Bazar,P.O:Chandinichowk,

P.S:Lalbag,Cuttack-753002.                                       ...   Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       M/s. Gupta Distributor,

Regd. Office at Dolamundai,

                PO:Buxibazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack

 

2.      Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Havells India Ltd.,

QRT Towers,2D-Sector-126,

Expressway Noida-201304(U.P).... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    03.12.2019

Date of Order:  27.04.2022

 

For the complainant:   Mr.  A.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1       :  None.

For the O.P No.2:         Mr. M.R.Mahalik,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

            The case record is put up today for orders.                                                  

            The case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he had purchased one LED T.V L32N2 from the shop house of O.P No.1 of LLOYD make bearing model No.HSHLG 20101017 on 30.3.2019 for a consideration of Rs.13,500/- and the said LED T.V had a warranty of 36 months from the date of purchase.  It is further contention of the complainant that the said LED T.V was affected by short circuit of electric line in the month of “Fani”.  Since it was within the warranty period, the complainant wanted its replacement/repair.  He had contacted O.P No.1 and O.P. No.2 as well for the said purpose but when it was not fulfilled he had to file this case claiming the cost of the LED TV, which he paid, to the tune of Rs.13,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum till final payment.  He has also claimed compensation towards his mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.         On the other hand, O.P No.1 has not contested this case and thus has been set exparte vide order dt.12.11.2020.  However, O.P No.2 has contested this case and has filed his written version.  As it appears from the written version of O.P NO.2, he admits about the damage of the LED TV which was purchased by the complainant but his plea is that the said TV was damaged not due to electrical short circuit but due to external burning which he assumes to be burnt from candle flame.  O.P No.2 further in his written version urged that if at all there was any electrical short circuit, then there would not have been any damage only to the bottom external portion of the LED TV and the remote.  According to O.P No.2, there was no internal damage to the said LED TV or its mother board or power supply portion.  Accordingly, it is prayed by O.P No.2 to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost.  To support his stand as taken by him, O.P No.2 has filed copies of photographs of one LLOYD TV.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as in the written version of O.P No.2, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues for proper adjudication of the case in hand.

i.          Whether the LLOYD make LED TV purchased by the complainant from O.P No.1 was damaged due to electrical short circuit and if it is covered by the warranty of the Company?

ii.         Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed by him?

 

Issue No.1.

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition against  both the O.Ps seeking compensation, cost of the LED TV and cost of litigation fees.  The complainant thus should establish his case with reasonableness and prudence.  There is no document to the effect that if there was any short circuit at the house of the complainant which caused damage to his LLOYD make LED TV which he had purchased from the O.P No.1’s shop.  To the contrary, it is consistent plea of O.P NO.2 that there was no internal injury or damage to the said LED TV of the complainant for which O.P No.2 urges through his written version that had it been the short circuit case, then there should have been injury to the mother board, electrical supply portion etc and not only to the bottom portion and the remote of the TV.  The complainant should have established the plea taken by him that the damage to the TV was only due to electrical short circuit and should have rebutted the plea taken by the O.P No.2 that candle flame had burnt the external portion of the TV.  Since because the onus lies upon the complainant here in this case, the complainant has failed to justify his claim by advancing proper evidential proof.  As such, this Commission can never come to a conclusion that the LED TV in question which was purchased by the complainant from the shop of O.P No.1 has been damaged due to electrical short circuit which should be replaced or repaired since because it was within the warranty period as claimed.  Thus, this issue is answered in the negative and against the complainant.

Issue No.2.

            As per the above discussion, this Commission can award no compensation or relief to the complainant as claimed by him.

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.2 and exparte against O.P. No.1 and as regards the facts and circumstances without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 27^th day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.