IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA
C.C.NO-133/2020
Sandeep Kumar Tiwari
S/O: Shiv Narayna Tiwari,
R/O: Behermal, Behind Allahabad Bank,
PO: Industrrial Estated,
PS/Dist : Jharsuguda,Odisha ..……Complainants.
Versus
- VARETO ELECTRO Pvt LTD:-
Kukas, Khasra No. 206/207, Amber Grinding Mills,
Kukas Amber, Jaipur Delhi Highway
City- Jaipur,State- Rajasthan-302028
- Philips Company,
Regd Office- PE Electronics Ltd,
Auto Car Compound, Adalat Road,
Aurangabad-431005 ……..…………Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Self.
For the Opp. Party :- Nrusingha Kisan, Advocate & Associates.
Present:- 1. Shri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President
2. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).
Date of Hearing:- 03.11.2021, Date of Order: 11.11.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has purchased a LED TV of Model PHILLIPS 42 PFL4150/ V7 107(42) Full HD through online purchase from the O.P on dtd.26.08.2015. The price f the said TV was Rs. 34364/- vide item No- JC389652. The said TV was performed well till dtd. 07.09.2021 but shown some problems as it does not started at all, no picture was displayed etc. The Complainant has made contact with one local engineer Sushil Pradhan of Sambalpur who asked the model no of the TV and answered that the spare parts of the said model is not available with him. Thereafter the Complainant made contact with the customer care of Phillips who is the O.P-2 in this case, vide Toll Free No- 1800 4256 369 who recorded the complaint vide no- 200 909 104 305 dtd. 09.09.2020 but no response made. Again the Complainant made a TWEET to the O.P-2 and lodged the second complaint vide no- 200 912 105 978 dtd. 12.9.2020 and he was again assured to get the problem solved within 24 – 48 hours but no one came to attend him. During COVID time the children at home could not make their study through online (Video Conference) due to the defective LED TV for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
The O.P-1 & 2, despite of service of notice they did not bother to file written statements to their defence before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose off the case on merit basis considering the Complaint petition filed by the Complainant.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new LED TV of Model PHILLIPS 42 PFL4150/ V7 107(42) Full HD through online purchase from the O.P on payment of consideration amount. It is the O.Ps to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said LED TV after using the same for some years. But despites several telephonic contacts to the customer care centre and registration of complaints the O.P-2, he could not get it repaired being the Authorised service centre and unable to provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the LED TV was not within warranty period. The O.Ps has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to others’ shoulder that spare is not available. But customer care centre after registering the complaint were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective parts to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Further we feel that technology continues to change from time to time and any product that is purchased today is likely to be outdated with the change of technology and particular part may not be available in case of change of technology or even in the case of up gradation of goods. In the present case, no doubt the complainant spent an amount of Rs.35,364/- for the purchase of LED TV on 26.08.2015 , yet due to change in technology it was beyond the reach of the parties to provide the spare part, which became defective. It was not the case of the complainant that any defect took place during the warranty period. The plea of the complainant is that firstly, the complaint was lodged by his regarding defect in the LED TV in the month of September, 2020 i.e. after a period of five years of its purchase which clearly proved that it did not have any inherent manufacturing defect. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Madhu Dayal vs Goldline Electronics” decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 17 December, 2014. Hence the O.Ps has committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to repair the LED TV set of the Complainant through expert technician/mechanics from the company to make the TV set defect free to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 11th day of November-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
PRESIDENT.
