DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 05 OF 2016
Brij Bihari Singh (40 Yrs.),
S/O: Babulal Singh,
R/O: Baliammaha Bidyalaya Road,
Dalki, Jharsuguda,
PO/PS/Dist-Jharsuguda, Odisha,………..……..……..……..………. Complainant.
Versus
- M/S Zebra Motors,
At: Jhanda Chouk,
PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- The Samsung Care,
In front of Vishal Mega Mart,
Main Road, Jharsuguda,
PO/PS/Dist- Jharsuguda.
- Manufacturer, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.,
B-1, Sector- 81, Phase-2, Noida,
Dist- Gautam Budh Nagar (UP).………………..................... Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Self.
For the Opp. Party No.1,2 & 3 None (Ex-Parte).
Date of Order: 24.05.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.
Shri S.K.Ojha, Member : - The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one Samsung LED TV by paying Rs.34,500/- only on dtd. 18.11.2014 vide Invoice No. 690 from O.P.No.1 having warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. The said TV set started occurring problem from dtd. 10.12.2014 and continued in regular intervals. The complainant informed the matter to the O.P.No.1 and as per the instruction, the O.P.No.2 have gone to the house of complainant and repaired the said TV. But the problems could not be solved. The complainant asked the O.P.No.1 to replace the said TV but the O.P No.1 did not and told to pay the charges of repairing and service charge as the warranty period has expired, hence this case.
Being noticed through this Forum, the O.Ps. neither appeared before this Forum nor submitted their written statements and after being providing sufficient opportunities the O.Ps set ex-parte ultimately.
Heard from the complainant and perused the case record including materials available. The complainant had purchased a Samsung LED TV from the O.P.No.1 on dtd. 18.11.2014 by paying Rs. 34,500/- only and was provided one year warranty. The said TV started occurring problems in display since dtd. 10.12.2014. The said TV was repaired by the O.P No.2 but the problems could not be rectified and it was continued in regular intervals. After asking by the complainant the O.P.No.1 did not replace the TV and the warranty period has over. After being noticed also neither of the O.Ps responded, it reveals that the O.Ps have nothing to say in this case.
In view of the above mentioned circumstance the O.Ps found to be deficient in their services as they neither rectified the problems of TV nor replaced the TV to a new one within the period of warranty. Hence the complaint petition is allowed with directions to the O.Ps as follows :
ORDER
The O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.3 are hereby jointly and severally directed to replace the said defected TV to a new defect free TV of same brand and of same price or refund Rs.34,500/- (Rupees thirty four thousand five hundred) only alongwith Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of the case within 30(thirty) days from the date of receiving of this order, failing which interest @ 10% per annum will be charged on the whole awarded amount till date of realization.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 24th day of May, 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree.
S.L.Behera, President S.K.Ojha, Member
Dictated and corrected by me.
S.K.Ojha, Member
