Orissa

Cuttak

CC/4/2019

Kailash Chandra Ojha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shreejal Services,Sony Service center - Opp.Party(s)

B Rout

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

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

                                                                                    C.C. No.04/2019

Kailash Chandra Ojha,

Res. of Vill:Govindpur,PO:Sahaniajpur,

P.S:Mahanga,Dist:Cuttack.                                                            …Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

       

       

M/s. Shreejal Services,

Sony Authorised Serevice Centre,

Plot No.203/2901,196/2977,

Unit-34,Sriram Nagar,

Badambadi,Cuttack-12.                                                              … Opp. Party.

 

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

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     07.01.2019

Date of Order:   11.12.2019

 

For the complainant:          Mr. Basudev Rout,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Party:                      None.

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

The complainant has filed this case alleging therein deficiency in service against the O.P. and seeking appropriate relief against it in terms of his prayer in the consumer complaint.

1. Facts of the complainant’s case stated in brief are that on 5.5.15 the complainant purchased a Sony LED T.V from Sree Radhakanta Enterprisers,Medical Chhak,Mahanga,Dist:Cuttack vide bill No.785.  Its sl. No. is 8318983 and its model was KLV-22P402B.  The guarantee period was for one year from the date of purchase but it has already expired in the mean time.

Subsequently it is stated that some problems developed pin the said LED T.V and the pictures were not visible in the screen although the sound was intact.The complainant therefore contacted the customer care centre requesting for repair of the said T.V.Accordingly, the mechanic was deputed to attend the problem on 11.8.2018 and on verification the said mechanic stated that the panel board of that LED T.V had been damaged which required to be completely replaced.As such the said mechanic demanded Rs.1500/- from her for the repairing of that T.V set and it was duly complied with.Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the cash memo of the purchase of that LED TV and Annexure-2 is the photo copy of the warranty card.Annexure-3 is the photo copy of the money receipt bearing No.864 dt.11.8.18 paid in advance by the complainant.The said mechanic assured that the repair work shall be completed within a fortnight.After expiry of the said period, when the repair work could not be done, the complainant contacted the mechanic over phone but none attended the call.All on a sudden on 9.10.18 the said mechanic came to the residence of the complainant and replaced the panel board and despite such repair, the T.V set could not function properly.Even the sound system went out of order.Thereafter, the said mechanic took that LED T.V to the service centre of the O.P. for proper repairing but till date it was not returned to him.

The complainant therefore sent a pleader’s notice on 13.11.18 to the O.P which was duly received by the latter without any response.This is tantamount to deficiency in service and it has caused serious mental agony and harassment to him.He was completely deprived of enjoying the T.V programme solely because of the negligence of the O.P.Annexure-4 is the photo copy of the pleader’s notice dt.13.11.18.Annexure-5 & 6 are respectively the postal receipt No.8700 dt.13.11.18 and A.D dt.16.11.18 filed in token of receipt of the said pleader’s notice by the O.P.

It is therefore prayed that the O.P may be directed to return a new LED TV in good condition and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses in the interest of justice.

2. The O.P has neither appeared in the court nor contested the case.  As such he was set exparte.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the contents of the complaint as well as the annexures filed with it.  The uncontroverted statement of the complainant supported by annexures stated above goes to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Hence ordered;

ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.P.  The O.Ps is directed to return the said defective LED T.V after full repair and in good working condition or to refund the cost of Rs.12,700/- to the complainant.  He is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- each towards compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant in the interest of justice within a period of 45 days from the date 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   11^th   day of December,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                        President.

                                                             

 

                                                                                                        (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)