Smt. Sahana Ahmed Basu, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that the complainant purchased a Yamaha 5 ICH Home Theatre System from Reliance Retail Ltd. On 21/03/2014 by making a Service Contract with the O.P. for 5 years and paid Rs.7,090/- towards service charge and the validity of such service contract is till 10/03/2019.
On 14/07/2018 complainant intimated the O.P. for necessary service as the said Home Theatre was not functioning properly but after two months i.e. on 20/09/2018 O.P. sent one technician to his residence but the said technician could not repair the defects of the home theatre and the said Home Theatre is lying idle till date. Despite of several requests O.P. did not send any technician to rectify the defects of the home theatre system.
The complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate on 13/11/2018 and in reply the O.P. asked the complainant to place the home theatre system at the service centre but ultimately the complainant’s request was cancelled due to non-availability of the concerned person. Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint praying for direction upon the O.P. to render service of the Home Theatre System by removing the defects of the home theatre system and for other reliefs as made out in the petition of complaint.
In spite of service of notice neither the O.P. appear nor did they contest the case and as such the instant consumer complaint remains unchallenged and proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.
Points for determination
- Is the O.P. deficient in rendering service to the complainant ?
- Is the O.P. indulged unfair trade practice ?
- Is the complainant deserves any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
Points No.-1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Upon taking into account of the entire fact of the consumer complaint and also considering the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and further all over assessment and evaluation of the evidence as well as photocopies of the installation report and job sheet furnished by the complainant it is found that the complainant purchased the subject Home Theatre System from Reliance Retail Ltd. On 21/03/2014 and made a service contract with the O.P. for the subject Home Theatre System by paying Rs.7090/- only as per invoice of the O.P. Fact remains that the said service contract has been extended till 10/03/2019 and on 14/07/2018 the complainant intimated the O.P. to repair the subject Home Theatre System as it was not functioning properly. We find from the job sheet furnished by the complainant that O.P. sent technician on 29/09/2018 after expiry of two months from the date of intimation. This attitude of the O.P. is tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Technician of the O.P. could not repair the subject Home Theatre System properly and observed some internal errors. The complainant intimated such fact to the O.P. several times with a request to solve the problem but the O.P. did not turn up. On receiving the Legal Notice dated 13/11/2018 the O.P. replied the notice without mentioning any date and asked the complainant to place the Home Theatre System to their service centre. Important business letter without mentioning date is a serious negligence and unfair trade practice. In the said letter the O.P. stated that –
“But we would like to inform you with regret that according to the service policy of Reliance, if not set ready with properly in customer place then we are take off the product and systematically checked in our service centre in presence of brand technician at our own cost.
As we have tried to send the brand technician at customer place but as per Yamaha brand policy they can only give service at service centre due to the product has carry in service.
So, I therefore request you to please support our service team to recover the error.”
On perusal of the said letter we find that the O.P. did not show any gesture that they would bear the carrying cost. Therefore, we find that the O.P. is deficient in rendering required service though they have taken the service charges and A.M.C. is in force till March-2019 and the O.P. has also caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant.
Complainant corroborates his case by adducing evidence on affidavit as well as by producing documentary evidence. The evidence of the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. In absence of any contrary and converting materials on record and having regards to the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.
Thus all the points under determination answered in the affirmative.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. with cost of Rs.1,000/- only.
The O.P. directed to render require service of the subject Home Theatre System and to set it within 30 days from the date of this order with litigation cost.
The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing harassment and mental agony within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order into execution, if the OP transgress to comply the order.
