Orissa

Cuttak

CC/268/2022

Sangram Keshari Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propriertor,Jeaves Consumer Services Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P K Mishra & associates

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.268/2022

 

          Sangram Keshari Sahoo,

           S/o: Krushna Canda Sahoo,

           At:Kaibalya Vihar,SRIRAM Lane,

           Iswar Nivas,Po/P.S:Chauliaganj,

           Dist:Cuttack,Odisha-753004.                                            ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Proprietor,Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. ,                                                                                                                                              At:L-169,13th  Cross,5th Main,Sector-6

HSR Layout,Bangalore,Karnataka-560102,IN,DA

Regd. Office at:Jeeves Consumer Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Building Alyesa,Bagonia,SI. Clover,

Embassy Techvilalge,Cutter Ring Road,

                   Deverabeesarahalli,Villag:Bangalore-560103

India,CIN-U52551 KA 2007 PTCo 744748,

                   Karnatak.

 

2.       Proprietor,Happy Care,Rajabagicha,

Labour Colonh,Qr. No.C/6,

in front of Sumitra Plaza,Cuttack.....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   31.12.2022

Date of Order:  08.08.2023

 

For the complainant       :          Mr. P.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                      :                     None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had exchanged his SAMSUNG LCD TV worth of Rs.2720/- and had thereby purchased a new Thomson 108 cm/43 inches Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV from the O.Ps on 12.10.2019 for which he had paid the balance amount of Rs.19,712/- through Flipkart. The new TV had warranty for one year vide ID no.OD11677278021442000 dated 12.9.2019.  The complainant further preferred to have extended warranty of three years and had paid a sum of Rs.1919/- extra to that effect.  But from the date of installation, the said TV had suffered from deficiency as regards to the sound and vision quality, which according to him, is a defective one.  It is for this, the complainant had tried to communicate the O.Ps on many occasions but when they had not responded, he had even sent legal notice to them on 31.10.2022.  Ultimately, the complainant had to file this case before this Commission seeking replacement of the said TV with a new one and to direct the O.Ps to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further to pay him a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

          In order to establish his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.22.3.2023.

            3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

                       i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Point No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the averments of the complaint petition, the written notes of submission together with all the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.19,712/- with the intent to purchase one Thomson 108 cm/43 inches Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV from the O.Ps on 12.10.2019 and had also paid an extra sum of Rs.1919/- in order to avail the extended warranty for three years besides its warranty for one year.  As it appears, the complainant had made several correspondences with the O.Ps as regards to the defect in his TV but those were unanswered by the O.Ps.,  It is for this, when there was warranty period persisting and there was defect noticed as regards to the sound and vision quality of the said purchased TV of the complainant from the O.Ps, which when complained of were not attended to, imbibes us to arrive at a definite conclusion that the O.Ps were infact deficient in their service for the said reason and had also practised unfair trade.  This point is answered in favour of the complainant.

Points no.i & iii.

          From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                                          ORDER

          The case of the complainant is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to replace the defective Thomson 108 cm/43 inches Ultra HD 4K LED Smart Android TV  of the complainant with immediate effect.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards his mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 8^th day of   August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                     

                                                                                                              

                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                               Member