Orissa

Cuttak

CC/114/2016

Smt. Dolly Kedia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Patra Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

H Kedia

25 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C. No.114/2016

            Smt. Dolly Kedia,

W/O:Sri Binayak Kedia,

Binod Bihari Lane,Balu Bazar,

Cuttack.                                                                            … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. M/s. Patra Electronics,Sector-6,CDA,Cuttack

 

2.   The Chairman,Panasonic India (P) Ltd.,

            12^th Floor,Ambience Island,NH8,Gurgaon

3.  The Managing Director,

Panasonic India (P) Ltd.,

       SPIC Building Annexe,6^th Floor,

      No.88,Mount Road,Guindy,Chennai.

 

4.  M/s. R.S. Electronics,

        Opp. Hero Motor Cycle Show Room,

       M/s. Sunny Hero,Kanika Chhak,

      Cuttack.                                                                                … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:   Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   30.08.2016.

Date of Order: 25.03.2017.

 

For the complainant:               Sri Hariharan Kedia,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Parties.    :                  R.P.Choudhury,Sr. B.M.Panasonic India (P) Ltd..

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part in doing the business and seeking appropriate reliefs in terms of his prayer in the complaint.

1. The facts of the complainant ‘s case is that she has purchased two nos. of Panasonic LED T.V having Model No.29B6DX and Sl. Nos.E02600 and  E03221 on 14.9.13 from O.P.1 for Rs.42,000/-.  Each LED T.V was having warranty period of 3 years.  Annexure-1 is the copy of the invoice of the above two T.V sets.  The T.V. set having Sl. No.E02600 worked well till the first fortnight of April,2016 and thereafter it suddenly stopped working.  No picture appeared in the T.V. screen.  Thereafter, the husband of the complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.2600 on 27.4.2016 with the O.P and received a message in his mobile phone regarding non-availability of any parts of the said T.V.  On 5.5.16 he again lodged a complaint bearing No.R2600416169817 with the O.Ps and received a message in his phone on 6.5.16 that the said complaint had been cancelled due to the reason that the consumer could not be contacted.  Subsequently on different occasions he has lodged complaints with the O.Ps including the O.P.4 on different dates for the same purpose but in vain.  On 9.5.16 an expert of O.P.4 attended the defective T.V as per the request of the complainant’s husband and made necessary repair.  The T.V was made good.  But suddenly thereafter on 10.5.16 the same problem was repeated.  The husband of the complainant went on lodging complaints with the O.Ps but it yielded no result.  Lastly he has requested the ASM of the O.P. Company over his Cell phone but the latter denied to render any assistance stating that the warranty period of 3 years is only a promotional scheme and not a regular warranty period.  Lastly the complainant lodged this complaint before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the old defective T.V by a new defect free one free of cost or to refund Rs.21,000/- received towards cost of the defective T.V with interest  @ 12% per annum.  It is further prayed that the O.Ps may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.500/-per month towards the cost of hiring a T.V from a private person since April,2016.
2. The O.Ps have jointly filed written version of their case.  At the outset it is stated that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint is a false and baseless one.  It is further submitted that the Company has offered to replace the defective T.V free of cost but there was no response received from the complainant.  The other material points have been denied by the O.Ps.  It is therefore prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the authorized officer of the O.Ps.  We have gone through the case record and the Annexures-1 & 2 produced by the complainant.  While advancing the argument, the authorized officer of the O.P in conformity with his stand taken in the written version has admitted to replace the old defective T.V by a new defect free one.  The learned advocate for the complainant has no objection to it.  Hence ordered;

ORDER

                                The prayer of the complainant is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.1,2,3 & 4.  They are directed to replace the old defective T.V by a new defect free LED T.V of the same cost.  They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.  This order shall be given effect to within 45 days of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 25^th  day of March, 2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                       President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                      (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                         Member.

                                                                                                               (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)