For Complainant         :           Sri T. N. Murty, Advocate & associates.

For Op No.1                 :           None

For OP No.2                 :           Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate and associates.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant No.1 is that he decided to purchase a Samsung LED UA TV, 40K5570AUMXL model for use of his family and since the said TV was not then available at Koraput, he purchased the TV from Bhubaneswar through his friend OP No.2 vide Invoice No.1860 dt.09.08.2016 of OP No.1.  At the time of purchase, the Ops made the complainant believe that the TV will be installed by them at any place in Odisha and the Complainant No.2 informed the OP.1 that the TV is to be installed at Koraput in the house of Complainant No.1.  It is submitted that the Ops failed to install the TV in the house of Complainant No.1 in spite of repeated requests and demands.  The email dt.17.08.2016 to OP.2 for installation of TV also did not yield any result and the complainant submitted that the TV is lying unused.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to install the TV in the house of the complainant No.1 at Koraput and to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on purchase amount of the TV from the date of purchase and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation besides extension of the warranty on the TV.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complaint is neither coming under consumer dispute nor having any manufacturing defect in the TV or any deficiency in service is being established by the complainant in this case.  The OP.2 contended that no cause of action arises for filing of the complaint against the OP and the complainant is trying for an unjust enrichment by filing this case.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  At the time of hearing none of the parties were present and hence the order is on merit.

4.                     In this case, purchase of alleged TV by the complainant is not denied by the OPs.  The complainant No.1 stated that this particular TV was not available at Koraput then and hence he purchased the TV through his friend-Complainant No.2 from OP.1 at Bhubaneswar.  The complainant stated that after reaching the TV at Koraput, they contacted the Ops for installation of TV as per their promise at the time of purchase but the Ops did not take any action for such installation of TV.  It is seen from the record that the complainant No.1 had sent an email dt.17.08.2016 to Samsung customer care requesting early installation of TV but the Ops did not turn up.

5.                     The OP No.2 in his counter did not say anything about the installation of TV by their technician in the house of the complainant.  The Samsung Company has got service care units all over Odisha including that one at Jeypore which is nearer to Koraput.  The TV could have been installed at the first instance but it is seen that the TV in question could not be installed till filing of this case on 23.2.2017 although it was purchased on 09.08.2016.  From the above facts it was ascertained that the OP.2 is quite casual in performing after sale service.  This inaction of the OP.2 amounts to serious deficiency in service.

6.                     The complainant stated that due to such non-installation, the TV in question remains unused and hence he prayed for interest on the cost of the TV.  In the above premises, we feel that a local TV mechanic can install the TV on cost paid basis and the complainant should not wait for days or years together for the mechanics of the OP to come and install the TV.  Hence we are not inclined to grant anything in favour of the complainant to that respect.  Similarly we do not consider the case of warranty in the above situation but certainly the complainant is entitled for some compensation for deficient after sale service committed by the Ops.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice and the OP.2 is to bear the same.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation to the Complainant No.1 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)