Brief fact of this case is that, the Complainant purchased one SANSUI LED 50 inches, Model UHD TV SNA 50QXOZSA,Sl.No.110317110290602377 from the OP.No.1 on 26.01.2018 with paying consideration amount of Rs.48,000/-(Rupees forty-eight thousand) only on terms and conditions contained in the Customer Warranty card issued by the Op. No.1. from its own store i.e. Ultra Vision , Hotel Plaza Complex, NH-49, New Market, Keonjhar, Dist.Keonjhjar vide Invoice No.314 dt. 6.26.01.2018 and the warranty was valid for one year. After purchase, the complainant discovered that the LED Monitor screen causing a huge defect and the remote of the above LED has not working properly. Under the said terms and conditions the OP.No.1 undertook to render free service for one year from the date of purchase in relation to the said LED TV. After about nine months of running the said LED T.V. given to the OP.No.1 on 09.09.2018 when the screen and remote of the said LED TV stopped working. The complainant approached several times to OP.No.1 and Customer care service centre of SANSUI on dt.15.12.2018 made complain vide Complaint No. BHU1512180014 but no satisfactory result came out. The complainant by its letter/Advocate Notice on dt.17.01.2019 made a detailed complaint to the OP stating the manufacturing defects of LED T.V. and requested to repair/replace the said LED or to take back the same and to refund the price paid. The OP No.1 received the said letter/Advocate notice but neither replaced / repaired the defect nor replied to the said complaint, the complainant annexed the copy of the said notice. After several reminders the OP.No.1 stated that the defects were of manufacturing one and the same could not be fully repaired/replaced which causes mental agony and financial loss due to want of timely proper service by the Ops which can considered to be unfair trade practice. The complainant submitted that the OP.No.1 is liable to pay compensation for the harassment, troubles, loss, physical inconvenience and mental agony suffered by him which arose directly out of the breach of warranty, breach of agreement and breach of duty which causes such loss and damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant prays for the following reliefs (a) refund of Rs.48,000/- which was paid for the cost of LED (b) Interest from the date of purchase on Rs.8640/- @18% per annum (c)Damages for harassment, mental agony and financial loss as assessed at Rs.50,000/- (d) cost of the present proceeding and (e) any other reliefs entitled to.
The complainant relies upon the following documents:
- Photocopy of Cash Memo.
- Photocopy of Warranty card.
- Photocopy of Letter/Advocate Notice of complaint.
- Photocopies of f correspondence.
Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. In their written version the Op.1 stated that, the Op.No.1 is not concerned as the Company provided the product and anything contrary would be at the responsibility of the Company “VIDEOCON” group which provided SANSUI products and services. The company stipulated the jurisdiction at Aurangabad in Maharastra and as such Consumer case is not maintainable devoid of jurisdiction. The defect mentioned is not based on expertise technician and as such personal identification is questionable. That, the Op No.1 submitted one letter from OP No.2 which reveals that the Company is under Corporate Insolvency Resolution process by NCLT Order dated 06.06.2018. Accordingly, no case can be initiated/tried upon having been stayed as per order dt.06.06.2018 of the NCLT, Mumbai Bench vide CP(IB)-02-(MB)/2018, and enclosed the copy of the same for ready reference and SANSUI Product is marked by VIDEOCON Group. So, the contentions raised by the complainant are questionable. Hence, the OP.No.1 prays that the complain so made under Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum may kindly be abated/rejected.
The OP Insurance Company relies upon the following documents.
- Photocopy of letter of VIDEOCON company.
- Photocopy of order of CP(IB)-02-(MB)/2018,of NCLT, Mumbai Bench.
On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
FINDINGS
All the issues are inter-related to each other. So they are discussed jointly to decide the case. There is no dispute that the SANSUI LED 50” TV was purchased from OP.No.1. The warranty is available for one year on every part of TV. In this case OP.No.2 & 3 have not appeared to file written version and set ex-parte. So the case is decided on merit. OP.No.1, the authorised dealer appeared and submitted his written version. It revealed from the written submission as well as documents that the OP Company is under Corporate Insolvency resolution process by NCLT, Mumbai Bench vide CP(IB)-02-(MB)/2018 dt.06.06.2018. So this commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in this case. So, the complain case has no cause of action and devoid of merits. So the case is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
ORDER
The complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
