Karnataka

StateCommission

A/354/2014

Gururaj S/o. Nagesh Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Onida House - Opp.Party(s)

Girish B. Mangannavar

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 354/2014

 

Gururaj S/o. Nagesh Joshi R/o. “Shree Vanashree” Building II Cross, Railway Station Road Dharwad (By Sri. Girish B. Mangannavar) V/s	….Appellant
1.  Onida House      II Mahal Industrial Estate,      Near Paper Box, Mahakali Caves Road      Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093 2.  Prakash Retails Pvt. Ltd.      Opp. Ambalpady Post Office      Ambalpady, Udupi 576 103. 3.  The Sales Manager      “Harsha”, Oswal Tower      Jubilee Circle, Dharwad 580 001 (R3 by Sri. B.R. Krishna)	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed in C.C.No. 152/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad and submits that this appellant had filed complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice in selling defective TV which was purchased by him from OP Nos. 1 to 3 and demanded for replacement of LCD TV or to refund the cost of the TV with interest.  The District Commission without considering the allegation has dismissed the complaint.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay compensation and also for replacement of the TV. 

2. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal we noticed that complainant had purchased TV on 18.10.2011 from OP Nos. 1 to 3 by paying amount of Rs.22,580/- including V-guard voltage stabilizer.  Immediately after purchase of TV complainant noticed that it was not working properly.  It had a trouble shoot and informed same to OP No.1, but, the OP No.1 by one or the other reason has postponed to inspect the TV and to repair or to rectify the defect found in the TV.  Finally the complainant in the month of April 2013 complained about the persistent defect in the TV for which OP No.3 casually reacted.  When the complainant approached OP along with TV set on 13.04.2013 for checkup it was noticed that LCD panel was to be replaced and the cost of the same is Rs.14,608/- and service charges is at Rs.900/-.  The same was intimated through RPAD from respondent No.3 on 29.05.2013, but, the complainant instead of paying the said amount and to get repair the TV had issued legal notice and demanded for replacement of the TV.  We noticed here that the OPs have taken contention before District Commission that the warranty got expired after one year from the date of purchase of the said TV.  The complainant has used the TV for 2 years and there is no explanation regarding extension of warranty after two years and demanded for replacement or refund of cost of the TV.  The District Commission after considering the defense has dismissed the complaint.  We found there is no any error in the order passed by the District Commission.  We found mere demand for payment of the repair charges and cost of the LCD panel by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 does not amounts to deficiency in service.  If the complainant wants to repair his TV after expiry of the warranty period he has to incur expenses towards the repair.  Instead of that the complainant approached District Commission alleging falsely that the said TV had manufacturing defect.  We do not find any merits in the appeal. Moreover, the appellant is not present before this Commission to submit his arguments how far the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality.  In view of that the appeal also dismissed.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*