Orissa

Rayagada

CC/167/2016

Sriksantosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance Technologis - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

 

                                                      C.C. Case  No.167/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Sri K.Santosh,aged about 28 years, S/o K.Sathibabu, Resident of Kastauri Nagar,2^nd             Line,At/Po/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ………Complainant

Versus

1.  M/s Reliance Retail Ltd., CMR Central Shopping Mall, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
2. M/s TPV Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,501-508,5^th Floor, Bestech Chambers, B-Block, Sushant Lok,Phase-1,Sector-27,Gurgaon,Haryanba-122002.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri D.Ravi Prasad, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P1: Sri Aiman Ahmed, Authorised Representative.

For the Op 2: Exparte.

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  AOC LCD TV  from O.p. No.1 with a  consideration of Rs.25,000/- on 07.09.2014  vide invoice No.2299121100721448 but  after  within a short period 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 Engineer to rectify the defects but he failed to rectify the defects  and the Engineer said picture tube and penal board was collapsed due to manufacturing defects  and later the OP 1 did not respond  to the complainant    and hence finding no other option  the complainant  approach this forum and prayed to direct the O.ps  to  refund the cost of TV 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.p 1 appeared  through their advocate and filed written version inter  alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP 2 neither appeared nor filed written version, as such the OP 2 was set exparte. It is submitted by the O.P 1 that   the complainant has purchased AOC-40 LED TV A63 for Rs.24,990/- from OP 1 on 07.09.2014 and the  product purchased by the complainant is covered two years warranty and the complainant had all the liberty to use after sale services during warranty period.  As per the complainant within short period the LED got display problem and automatic switch off and the complainant approached the OP 1 and the OP 1 rejected  him stating  that he has not concerned to the dispute and asked him to approach OP 2 is absolutely false and  in fact the complainant has approached the OP 2 directly. This complaint has no jurisdiction to file before this forum since the complainant purchased the product at Visakhapatnam and the complainant has filed this complaint before the Rayagada. Hence, prayed to  direct the complainant complaint to file this complaint before appropriate  forum and the complaint be dismissed with costs.

            On the basis of the pleadings, the following  points  are  to be answered for determination.

(i)         Whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint ?

(ii)        Whether the TV in question is having any manufacturing defect ?

(iii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties ?

(iii)       Whether the Opp.Party is liable to pay any compensation, if yes, to what   extent?

 

Point No.1

                         As per Sec.11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act “ A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

1.             The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are           more    than     one, at the time of the institution of the complaint,          actually           and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch        office or           personally works for gain       ,or
2.             Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time    of         the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in            such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite         parties who do not reside or   carry on business or have a branch             office   or         personally work for     gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in  such institution;       or
3.             The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”.

            It is  submitted by the O.Ps in para-2 its written version that  the O.P. No.1 this complaint has no jurisdiction to file before this forum since the complainant purchased the product at Visakhapatnam and the complainant has filed this complaint before the Rayagada and  prayed to  direct the complainant complaint to file this complaint before appropriate  forum  as this complaint is  not at all maintainable before this forum. The complainant argued that he lives at Rayagada and the defects arose at Rayagada and as per Sec.11 (2 ( c )  the cause of action partly arises at Rayagada and as such this complaint is maintainable before this forum. We  agree with the argument of the complainant and hence this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to  entertain the present complaint.

                      

 

Point No.2

                         It is the case of the complainant that  within a short period its  purchase , the LED TV  set   given problem and did not work  for which the complainant  informed the OP 1 and   the OP 1 sent its Engineer to rectify the defects but he failed to rectify the defects  and the Engineer said picture tube and penal board was collapsed due to manufacturing defects  and later the OP 1 did not respond  to the .Hence, it is clear that as the defects in the LED TV was arose within a short period of its  purchase and the   O.ps  failed to  rectify the defect, we believed that it is a inherent  manufacturing defect  for which the OP is liable to  replaced  or refund the cost of the TV set.  

                        Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to  any goods.

                        Hence, in the above aspect Point No.2  is also answered  accordingly in favour of complainant.

Point No.3 & 4

                        As the Point No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant , it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.  Within a short period of its  purchase , the LED TV given problem for which complainant    informed the OP 1 and the OP1  sent its engineer but the engineer pointed out manufacturing defects in the TV  for which  the defects could not be rectified , which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Therefore, the O.P s are liable to refund the amount of the TV set with  cost and compensation. The Point No.3 & 4 is answered  in favour of the complainant. .  In the aforesaid findings, the complaint is allowed and disposed of with the following directions.

 

                                                            ORDER

             The Opp.Party No.1 & 2  being the retailer and manufacturer are  directed to refund the purchase amount of the LED TV  and for mental agony and harassment   pay compensation of Rs.2000/-  and cost of litigation or Rs.500/-  to the complainant   within one month, failing which the Ops are liable to pay 12%  interest on the  purchase amount of the TV  and awarded amount  and the complainant has liberty to file Criminal Proceeding against the Ops for non compliance of the order .

                       

 

 

 

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 23^rd day of  December,2016  under the seal and signature of this forum.

 

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

 

 

               Member                                                                      President

 

Documents relief  upon:

For the complainant:

1. Copy of  Invoice.

2. Copy of  Warranty Card

 

For the Opp.Parties: Nil

 

                                                                                                President