IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD , AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC No. 222/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission : Date of Disposal:
21.12.2017 02.01.2018 30.08.2018
Bidita Das (Basak)
W/O Debasis Basak
Residing t 9 Radhika Mohan Sen Road
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
PIN.-742101 …………… Complainant.
-vs-
- The Proprietor Chalantika
No-40 Naya Sarak Road, Gorabazar
P.O. & P.S.- Berhampore,
Dist- Murshidabad
PIN- 742101
- The In-Charge LLOYD Electric & Engineering Ltd.
Consumer Product div.
123B/A1 C/O Jagannath Cement Worked Pvt. Ltd.
Babu First Lane, Madhyamgram,
Kathore More, (Near Snake Garden)
Kolkata- 700128
…........... Opposite Parties.
Cont. ……….…. 2
= 2 =
Ld. Sambarta Mukherjee Advocate…………… for Complainant
Ex-Parte Ld. Sampa Roy Advocate ……………for Opposite Party
Present : Sri Ashis Kumar Senapati …. ……… President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …. .…. Member.
J U D G M E N T
Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :-
In concise, the fact stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a LLOYD 40” LED Television from the shop of the Opposite Party no. 1 for consideration amount of Rs. 32,990/- only. At the time of purchase, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only and the rest amount of Rs. 22,990/- only was paid by the Finance Company on behalf of the Complainant.
But after purchasing the said TV on and from 10.05.2017 the said TV became disorder and not properly displayed picture within the warranty period and the Complainant had informed the matter to the Opposite Party No. 1 but the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to take any liability in respect thereof for which the Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Opposite Party No. 2 but the Opposite Party No. 2 also refused to take any liability rather the Opposite Party No. 2 claimed the amount of Rs. 20,000/- only for repairing the said TV though the said TV became defective within its warranty period.
Cont. ……….…. 3
= 3 =
The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Parties for repairing the said TV in question but the Opposite Parties paid no heed to it, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant for which being victimized and harassed by the Opposite Parties the Complainant has to file the instant case seeking adequate redressal against both the Opposite Parties.
Despite service of the notice, no Opposite Parties ever appeared before the Forum in person and/or through any authorized representative / Ld. Advocate to contest the case by filing Written Version and thus the instant case have been heard ex-parte against both the Opposite Parties.
Point for Consideration
The point for consideration in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.
Decision with Reasons
In order to prove her allegation set forth in the complaint, the Complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by way of affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case.
The main allegation of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties is that, in spite of entire payment of consideration money towards the Opposite Parties, both the Opposite Parties had neglected and/or deficient to provide the proper services towards the Complainant by not repairing the said TV in issue which is within the warranty period.
Cont. ……….…. 4
= 4 =
On overall evaluation of the argument by the Complainant in person and perusing the material documents in record, it is evident that, the Complainant had purchased a LLOYD 40” LED Television on 04.05.2017 from the shop of the Opposite Party no. 1 for consideration amount of Rs. 32,990/- only. At the time of purchase, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- only which is clearly revealed from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant and the rest amount of Rs. 22,990/- only was paid by the Finance Company on behalf of the Complainant.
As per the statements of the Complainant and the photocopies of the ‘Legal Notice’ filed by the Complainant, it appears that soon after purchasing the said TV on and from 10.05.2017 the said TV became disorder and not properly displayed picture within its warranty period and the Complainant had informed the matter to the Opposite Party No. 1 but the Opposite Party No. 1 refused to take any liability to repair the said TV in issue.
The Complainant further alleged that thereafter the Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Opposite Party No. 2 for repairing the said TV in dispute but the Opposite Party No. 2 also refused to take any liability rather the Opposite Party No. 2 claimed the amount of Rs. 20,000/- only for repairing the said TV though the said TV in question became defective within the warranty period.
It is manifestly revealed from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that when both the Opposite Parties declined to repair the said TV in issue the Complainant sent a legal notice through her Ld. Advocate on 15.10.2017 towards both the Opposite Parties and both legal notices were duly received by both of them which is also evident from the photocopies of documents submitted by the Complainant but none Opposite Parties response towards the Complainant in this respect.
Cont. ……….…. 5
= 5 =
Moreover, the fact remains that after filing of the instant case both Opposite Parties were duly served the notices from this Ld. Forum but both of them never appeared to contest the case by appear in person or through their representatives and/or Ld. Advocate by filing Written Version and all the allegations made by the Complainant were never ever challenged by any Opposite Parties. Therefore, there are no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the Complainant.
Thus, it is crystal clear from the above discussion that the Complainant proved that the Complainant had purchased LLOYD 40” LED Television which is defective in its display screen and neither the Opposite Party No. 1 nor the Opposite Party No. 2 is ready to repair the said TV in issue which is definitely the deficient and/or negligent manner of rendering service towards the Complainant.
So the unanimous decision of the Forum is that both the Opposite Parties are liable to repair the said LLOYD 40” LED Television in question in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant within one month from the date of delivering the said TV in dispute by the Complainant to any of the Opposite Parties and both Opposite Parties are liable to accept the said TV in question and to repair the same within one month from the date of such delivery without charging any repairing cost. The Complainant is also directed to deposit the said TV in dispute towards any of the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of this ‘Order’. Or in failure to repair the same within the period of one month from the date of such delivery by the Complainant the Opposite Parties are further liable to replace the said TV in issue with a new one of same model / any model of same facilities as per choice of the Complainant of same price in favour of the Complainant within another 15 days from failure to repair the said TV in question.
Cont. ……….…. 6
= 6 =
Therefore, in the light of the above discussion it is finally and commonly decided by the Forum that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get relief as prayed for, and consequently, the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and same is allowed on contest against both the Opposite Parties with cost of Rs. 2,000/- only payable by both Opposite Parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
That the Complainant is directed to deliver and/or deposit the said LLOYD 40” LED Television in dispute towards any of the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of this ‘Order’ on proper acknowledgement.
That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to repair the said LLOYD 40” LED Television in dispute in good condition as to satisfaction of the Complainant within one month from the date of delivering the said TV in dispute by the Complainant.
That both Opposite Parties are further directed to receive and/or accept the said LLOYD 40” LED Television in question and to repair the same free of repairing cost within one month from the date of such delivery by Complainant.
Cont. ……….…. 7
= 7 =
That in failure to repair the said LLOYD 40” LED Television in issue within the period of one month from the date of such delivery by the Complainant, both the Opposite Parties are further directed to replace the said TV in dispute with a new one of same model / as per the choice of the Complainant of same price in favour of the Complainant within another 15 days from failure to repair the said TV in question.
That both the Opposite Parties jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within 45 days from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this Order, the Opposite Parties shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per day, as punitive damage, from the date of this order till full satisfaction of the decree, which amount shall be deposited by the said Opposite Parties in the State Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
