IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM A & N ISLANDS AT PORT BLAIR
C.D. CASE NO – 23 OF 2013
Shri Azad Ali ……………….Complainant
-Versus-
M/s. Islanders Margin Free Canteen …………….Opposite Party.
President | Sudip Niyogi |
Member | Tasneem Abid |
Member | Abdul Waseem |
Date of Judgement:- On 16th Day of May, 2014
AWARD
The case of the Complainant in short is that, on 13/09/2012 he had purchased one Godrej LCD T.V, 32” from the O.P (Islanders Margin Free Canteen, Port Blair) at a price of Rs. 34,900/- with one year warranty but after 8 months of purchase some defects were found in the said T.V and as it was within the period of warranty he approached the O.P and lodged a complaint with them. Thereafter, the representative of the O.P visited the house of the Complainant and took away the defective part with the assurances that the same would be replaced within a month, but even after 2 months, no replacement of the said defective part was made by the O.P despite repeated request from the part of the Complainant, nor the said T.V was replaced by the O.P. As a result, after waiting for some more time without getting any response from the O.P, he was compelled to lodge a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, before this forum seeking for replacement of the defective T.V with a new one.
On receipt of the notice O.P. appeared and prayed for time for filing written objection but ultimately, has not contested this case, as a result, the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P.
The point for consideration is:-
Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case?
FINDINGS
The Complainant Shri Azad Ali filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit and also produced 2 documents which is a cash bill dated- 13/09/2012 (Exhibit-1) and a warranty card in his name (Exhibit-2).
Exhibit-1 is found to be a cash bill of Islanders Margin Free Canteen, Marine Hill and was issued in the name of Azad Ali on 13/09/2012 for a Godrej LCD T.V, 32”. However, this voucher/cash bill does not reflect the entire consideration price and this is only for Rs. 5000/- which is said to be a ‘difference amount’. It is not clear specifically about why this amount of difference of Rs. 5000/- was paid to the O.P by the Complainant. Barring this no other cash bill has been produced by the Complainant.
Exhibit-2 is found to be a user manual of Godrej Eon (GL32T33KAB) and it includes a warranty card where the date of purchase is shown to be 13/09/2012 and the name of the customer has been shown as Azad Ali. This warranty card also bears the signature and stamp/seal of the O.P.
In his examination-in chief on affidavit, the Complainant claimed to have purchased a Godrej LCD T.V of 32” on 13/09/2012 from the O.P. at a price of Rs. 34,900/- , the period of warranty was 12 months but unfortunately, after 8 months of purchase Complainant could find some defects in the T.V for which he approached the O.P. The Complainant further claimed that on his complaint O.P. sent one representative to his house who on checking the T.V set stated that some part of the T.V had become defective which needed to be removed. Accordingly, Complainant allowed him to take away the defective part and he was assured that either the defective part would be replaced and the T.V would be made operational or the T.V itself would be replaced, but subsequently, O.P did not replace the said part nor did he give any new set to him.
As observed herein above that the O.P. did not contest the case though initially appeared, to clarify his position as against the claim of the Complainant.
Though Complainant did not produce the cash bill for the entire consideration money for the T.V, however, Exhibit-1 coupled with Exhibit-2 which were issued in the name of the Complainant on behalf of the O.P. reveal that the Complainant had purchased one Godrej LCD T.V 32” from the O.P. on 13/09/2012. It is also found from the evidence of the Complainant that the said T.V developed some problem after about 8 months for which the O.P. was approached following which the representative of the O.P. took away the defective part from the T.V with the assurance to replace the same but did not do anything thereafter. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this forum is of the view that passing of an order for replacement of the T.V bought by the Complainant from the O.P. would be a justified one.
Accordingly it is,
Ordered
that the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte. The Complainant is entitled to get replacement of his Godrej LCD T.V 32” from the O.P.
O.P. is hereby directed to replace the said T.V set of the Complainant with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect and also to pay sum of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand Rupees Only) to the Complainant for the harassment and mental pain and agony meted out to him within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which, the Complainant shall get at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law.
(Mr. Sudip Niyogi) | (Miss. Tasneem Abid) | (Mr. Abdul Waseem) |
President | Member | Member |
