DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 101 of 2019

 

 

Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

S/O.Sri Bhagirath Ch. Arya,

C/O.Indra Mohan Debbarma,

Resident of A.A. Road, Radha Madhav Sarani,

Opposite of Tarun Sangha Club,

P.O.-Dhaleswar, P.S.-East Agartala, PIN-799007,

Dist.-West Tripura, ….........….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Proprietor

Gita Enterprise, 

Hari Ganga Basak Road, Near Agiya Chalo Sangha,

Melarmath, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura.

Pin-799001. 

 

2. The Manager,

Bajaj Finserv Ltd. 

Ground Floor Banik Kutir,

Sankar Chowmuni, Krishna Nagar,

Near Sanghati Club, P.O.-Agartala,

Agartala, PS-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001

 

3. Sony Authorized Service Centre, 

Dhaleswar Road No.1, Kargil Chowmuni,

Near Lotus Club, P.O.-Dhaleswar, P.S.-East Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799007.

 

4. CPP Assistance Services Pvt. Ltd.

Ground floor, wing-A, Tower-A, 

Golf view corporate tower,

Golf Course road, sector-42,

Gurgaon, Hariyana, Pin-122002............................................................... Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In-person.

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Debal Saha,

  Smt. Piyali Chakraborty,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. Nos.2,3&4 : None appeared. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 07/05/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Mridul Kanti Arya, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant purchased one Sony LED TV on 03/05/2018 vide model No.KLV-32W672EIN518874701 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the Proprietor Gita Enterprise by availing loan as monthly EMI from the Bajaj Finserv Ltd. The Complainant  also purchased extra extended warranty for one year for an amount of Rs.2,266/- from the Bajaj Finserv Ltd. In the month of October, 2019 the Complainant found display of his LED TV was not working properly. Thereafter, on 13/11/2019 the Complainant made contact with the Sony Service Centre at Agartala and after proper verification of his TV they provided him one estimate statement for an amount of Rs.11,459/- which the Complainant to submit before the Bajaj Finserv Ltd. for repair the picture panel of the TV. On the next date he went to office of the O.P. No.2 situated at Sankar Chowmuni, Agartala from where he came to know O.P. No.2 only financer but insurance was provided by CPP Asset Care. He also came to know that the O.P. No.2 collaborate with O.P. No.4 provided the insurance to the customer. Thereafter, he collected the insurance paper from the office of the O.P. No.2 where his membership no. was given AC1340612, then he made contact with the customer care but they refused to pay the estimated amount on the ground that in the insurance papers it is specifically mentioned that SONY India Limited will bear 2 year manufacturer warranty and after expiry of that period CPP Asset Care will bear 1 year extended warranty. Thereafter, he again made contact with Sony Service Centre and told then the above facts, then they show him the warranty card by which Sony Service Centre will be liable for any defect upto one year from the date of the purchase. On 16/11/2019 he send one email to the CPP Asset Care to resolve the dispute but they did not give any response of him. Subsequently on so many occasion he made contact with the O.P. Nos.2,3&4 but no solution was found. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.1,48,000/-(Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/-)  as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony  and travel costs from the O.Ps.  

Hence this case. 

 

2. On admission of the complaint notices were issued upon the O.Ps. But the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 after receiving the notice did not turn up and consequently the case was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 27/01/2020. A fresh notice was issued upon the O.P. No.4 by speed post and notice was duly served to the O.P. No.4. The O.P. No.4 also did not turn up and it was ordered to proceed ex-pare against the O.P. No.4 vide order dated 19/03/2020. Only the O.P. No.1 contested the proceedings by way filing written version. In the written version the O.P. No.1 submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. Ultimately O.P. No.1 denied and disputed and averred that the instant complaint is false, concocted and it is liable to be dismissed.     

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

 

3. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 5 documents comprising 12 sheets under a Firisti dated 05/12/2019. The documents are namely Photo copy of the cash memo, Photo copy of the warranty, Photo copy of the insurance copy dt. 18/05/2018, Photo copy of the estimate statement & Photo copy of the E-mail. On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. No.1. 

    No evidence is adduced by the O.P. No.1.

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points are cropped up for determination:

        (I) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant ? 

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  any compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS : 

           On the date of argument the Counsel of the O.P. No.1 was absent and we heard Mr. M. K. Arya who is the Complainant of this case. He also submitted a written argument. In his written argument he stated that the O.P. No.2 only financed to purchase his LED TV but insurance was provided by CPP Asset Care. Sony Service Centre provided one estimate statement on 13/11/2019 for an amount of Rs.11,459/-. He submitted that both O.P. Nos.2 & 4 are responsible and liable as their were one year extended warranty and the purchased LED TV will have to be repaired at the cost of O.P. No.4 as per terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. He also submitted that he has no grievance against the O.P. No.1.                              

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  In the instant case only O.P. No.1 contested the proceeding and it was proceeded ex-parte against O.P. Nos.2,3 & 4. 

          On perusal of the pleadings we find that the Complainant purchased one Sony LED TV from the Showroom of O.P. No.1 on 03/05/2018 with the finance by O.P. No.2 and he also purchased extra extended warranty for one year for an amount of Rs.2,266/- from Bajaj Finserv Ltd. According to the Complainant in the month of October, 2019 one day display of LED TV was not working then he made contact with the Sony Service Centre at Agartala and after proper inspection of TV they provided him one estimate statement for an amount of Rs.11,459/-. Thereafter, he made contact with the O.P. No.2 as well as O.P. No.4 but he was not getting any response. From the examination-in-chief on Affidavit submitted by the Complainant we found that he reiterated the same facts which was narrated in the Complaint. At the time of cross-examination he  stated that the O.P. No.4 was the insurer. As per term and conditions of the Insurance Policy the warranty period is two years of manufacturer. Thereafter, O.P. No.4 was liable for extended warranty of  a term of one year. When we take up the documentary evidence which is marked as Exhibit-I series, we found that the warranty card issued by Sony speaks that the warranty period is up to March, 2019 which is valid for one year from the date of purchase and the date of purchase was on 03/05/2018. So from the date of purchase the warranty period will valid up to 02/05/2019. From the evidence we found that the display of the TV was not working in the month of October, 2019 that means the warranty period given by the Sony has been over. From the exhibited documents that is the Membership Certificate issued by CPP Group India(CPP Asset Care), it is found that the manufacturer warranty term is two years and extended warranty term is one year. It also appears that the Membership starting date is 18/05/2018 and Membership ending date is 17/05/2019. The documents submitted by the Complainant in support of his claim is very much contradictory and inconsistent. At the time of argument when we pointed out the contradiction to the Complainant, he failed to answer about it. He only submitted that it may be mistake. The warranty card issued by the Sony is very much clear that the warranty period is one year and it is found that the purchased TV has been disorder after expiry of warranty period given by the manufacturer. In this case, the Complainant failed to adduce proper documentation for fastening the O.Ps. for their liability.                                  

 

7.          So, we are in the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of deficiency of service caused by the O.Ps. 

       Hence, the Complaint is dismissed for want of evidence. No costs. 

            Supply copy of judgment free of cost to the Complainant as well as the O.P. No.I.   

 

      Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA