OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBER .
Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2017
Date of Filling : - 04.09.2017.
Date of Order :- 28 .08.2018.
Lakhaswar Khuntia,S/O.Late Rama Ch.Khuntia,
At- Haldi Mill Road,Gujurati Para,Gandhi Marg,
Angul,P.O.Hulurisingha,Dist.Angul,Odisha,
Pin- 759122.
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
01.Proprietor, Vardwaj Trading Co,At-Madan
Mohan Pada,P.O/Dist.Angu,Pin- 759122.
02.Chairman &Managing Director,Representing for
Mire Electronics Ltd,ONIDA House,G-1,M.I.D.C,
Mahakali Caves Road,Andheri (East),Mumbai-
For the complainant :- Sri B.C.Pradhan & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.parties :- Sri S.Sarangi & associates(Advs.).
: J U D G E M E N T :
Smt.S.Mallick, Member.
Deficiency of service by the opp.parties is the sole grievance of the complainant in the instant case.
2. The case of the complainant remains within a narrow compass. The complainant purchased a “LEO50FAIN” model LED smart 50” ONIDA television from the opp.party No.1 on dt. 10.10.2016 by paying an amount of Rs. 48,500.00 only which is annexed (Annexure-1) .Opp.party No.2 is the manufacturer of the said T.V who has given 1 year usual warranty along with another one year extended warranty . The copy of the warranty card is annexed (Annesxure-2 ) .Unfortunately on 26.7.2017 the T.V gone dead . There was absolutely “ No picture” & “ No Sound” in the television . Immediately the complainant registered his complaint on the customer care number 180030099000 with the registration complaint No. 10785006380028. Just after a few days the technician of the opp.parties came and inspected the defective TV set and told the complainant that he did not have the required spare part with him and he would come with the spare part on another day. But he did not come back . When the complainant again contacted the opp.parties, another technicians came with a spare part and tried to fix it in the said TV set but failed as that was not fit for that model . After some nagging, the technician came with another spare part and tried to fix but again could not succeed . Then the technician took away the defective spare part from the TV with a promise to bring the appropriate one but remained silent. Being harassed, when the complainant told his grievances to the Odisha State Service Head,Mr. Prasanat Rout of opp.party’s company came to know that the genuine spare part of the said model is not available as the company has stopped the production of that particular model TV. But the service head assured him for the replacement of the defective TV set with a new one of another model. Then he sent the technician on 21.08.2017 to take some photographs of the said TV set for the purpose of replacement. As per the advice of the Odissa State Service Head, on 29.8.2017 complainant sent his grievance to the customer care on their Email ID and sent the copy of that mail to the dealer as well as to the service head for Odissa Mr. Prasant Rout but got no reply . On 31.8.2017 he met the service head of the company at Bhubaneswar office and came to know that the head office did not approve his recommendation .So the complainant filed the present case praying to direct the opp.parties to refund Rs. 48,500.00 with an interest @ 18% till date of payment or to replace the defective TV with a new model with some or more specifications and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 along with cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 10,000.00 .
3. The opp.parties entered appearance, filed separate written version and contested the case. In the written version opp.parties had admitted that they had sold of the TV in question to the complainant along with the fact that he had only sent one of his technicians to the house of the complainant for preliminary inquiry regarding the defects found in the said TV set to the service center but the complainant did not allow him to enter into his house. Then another technician of the opp.party No.2 went his house where the complainant again did not allow him to enter, but on sincere request of the said technician person, the complainant allowed to inspect the TV set in question . On the first instance the said technician found the TV set was opened earlier, manhandled and tampered for which he expressed his inability to repair the said TV set . Except this the opp.parties denied all the allegations made by the complainant. Accordingly they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant as there is no deficiency of service caused by them .
4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues are settled for determination :-
Issues:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the opp.parties within the meaning of C.P.Act, 1986 ?
- Whether the complainant has manhandled and tampered the said TV or not ?
- Whether the opp.parties have committed any deficiency of service by delaying and not providing the genuine spare p art of the said defective TV in time and deferred the matter on several pretext ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief claimed ?
: F I N D I N G S :
Issue No.(i):- Admittedly the complainant purchased the said TV from opp.party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs. 48,500.00 only which was manufactured by opp.party No.2 and the opp.party No.2 offered 1 +1=2 years warranty period. Thus, the opp.parties stand in the footing of service provider to render service to the complainant. In that view of matter the complainant is definitely a consumer under the opp.parties within the meaning of C.P.Act, 1986.
Issue No.(ii) & (iii):- The complaint regarding the TV set in question by the complainant to the opp.parties is not however disputed. Admittedly the opp.parties had offered two years of extended warranty in respect of the said TV set by taking consideration. The cause of action arose on 26.04.2017 when the said TV set had gone dead. Soon after getting the information from the complainant , opp.parties sent their technician for preliminary inquiry. But the complainant did not allow him to enter into his house. After few days, on sincere. request of another technician of opp.parties the complainant allowed him to inspect the said TV set where it was found tampered and manhandled . So the opp.parties refused to repair the same . Without any supporting evidence, the version of opp.party No.2 “the T.V was tampered and manhandled indicates his fabricated plea to cover up his liability” as there is no reason for which the complainant will go for an option to check his costly T.V set by any skilled or unskilled person within the warranty period of 2 years.
The technicians of opp.parties tried twice to fix the spare part brought by them on two different occasions but failed to do so. Then on request of opp.parties, the complainant allowed to take away the main board of the said TV with them on 09.08.2017 which is annexed as (Annexure-5) which clearly indicates that he wanted his TV to be repaired at that point of time. But the opp.party No.2 failed to supply the genuine main board for months. Here the question arises - if the said TV was tampered and manhandled , then why did the opp.party No.2 take away the mainboard on 09.08.2017 from the complainant’s house to his service center ? . During the course of argument the learned counsel for the opp.parties gave assurance to replace the mainboard by another model T.V set with additional warranty of one year from the date of replacement which clearly indicates that the said T.V was not manhandled and tampered. Hence unrebutted presumption becomes proof and the opp.parties were found deficient to fix the genuine spare part in time. The issues (ii) and (iii) are answered accordingly.
Issue No.(iv):- The life of a costly T.V is not just for a few months . The mainboard of a T.V is like the engine of the vehicle . Within a spar of only 9 months the T.V did not work which is corroborated by the fact that the opp.party No.2 took the main board to his workshop but could not replace it with the genuine one otherwise for any type of minor defect he would have rectified the same at the site of his house itself and further the question of getting an expert opinion was not possible in the circumstances when the main board of the T.V is with the opp.party No.2. Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled Scooter India Ltd and Anr.Vs Madha Bananda Mohanty and Ors.,II(2005) CPJ 136(NC),had clearly held that “ It is not always necessary for the consumers to get expert testomy”.
The standard of ONIDA T.V should always live upto its reputation and the behavior of the opp.parties should have been so consumer friendly that complainant should not have felt the pinch of having a defective T.V.Every person who purchase a T.V has enormous sentimental values attached to the same. If any defect is arose it should have been removed when the main board was taken to the workshop where it was attended to by the engineers who had all the expertise on such Main boards.It is found from the print copy of the official Web Site page of opp.party No.2 (ONIDA T.V Company ) that there is no availability of the T.V in question i.e, (LEO50FAIN) model ,ONIDA. From the mail of the complainant dt. 29.08.2017 it is also clear that the complaint had written them regarding his tele talk with Mr.Prasant Rout,Odisha Service Head of the opp.party No.2 who informed that they donot have another genuine main board to replace since that model is out of stock.When a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfy the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product and if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another board of litigation which will be highly torturous. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Hindustan Motors Ltd and Anr. Vrs. N.Shiva Kumar and An.(2000) to Supreme Court cases 654, held that:-
“When any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model , under those circumstances there is no other way except to refund of the money along with interest, compensation and cost”.
The opp.party No.1 being the seller of defective T.V, in our considered view, was under obligation either to replace the said T,V or refund the consideration amount received. So far as the liability of both parties is concerned it is the issue between the manufacturing company and the dealer for which the complainant cannot be made to suffer.
Hence ordered that :-
: O R D E R :
The consumer complaint is allowed on contest. The opp.parties are directed to refund the sale price of the said T,V i.e Rs. 48,500.00 only to the complainant. They further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 only along with the litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000.00 .They are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount. The complainant is also directed to return back the said T.V to the opp.party No.1 after receiving the above amount.
It is made clear that in case of any deviation of this order by the opp.parties then they shall pay 12% interest on the awarded amount from the 46th day of this order till actual payment is made.
The aforesaid order shall be implemented within 45 days of getting this order, failing which law shall take its own course.
Order delivered in the open forum today the 29th August, 2018 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
( Smt.S.Mallick)
Member.
Sd/-
(Sri K.K.Mohanty),
Member.
