DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 112 of 2020.
Date of hearing : 14.02.2023.
Date of order : 15.03.2023.
Dated the 15th day of March 2023.
Harekrishna Tripathy, S/o:-Debendra Tripathy,
Vill:-Belda, Po:- Mouda, Via:- Madhabnagar,
P.S:- Bhadrak (R), Dist:-Bhadrak. ………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
1 Proprietor of M/s Biswal Sales Corporation,
At:- by-pass, Chhapulia, Po:- Bhadrak,
P.S:- Bhadra (T), Dist:- Bhadrak.
2 VIDEOCON INSUSTRIES LTD., represented by its
General Manager/Authorized Officer, 15 KM Stone,
Aurangabad-Paithan, Aurangabad-431005,
Maharashtra, India.
3 Authorized Officer of Videocon Industries Ltd.,
Plot No. 296, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2,
Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. .…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for Complainant : Mr. Gopinath Dash, Advocate & Associate,
Counsel for Opp. Parties : Mozahid Akhtar Khan, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T.
Smt. MADHUSMITA SWAIN, MEMBER.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant has filed this case U/s 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs.
“Replace the defective schedule LED by new one with same size & price or refund Rs.21,000/- the price of LED to the Complainant with Rs.500/- as cost of litigation”.
Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant purchased Videocon LED from M/s Biswal Sales Corporation (O.P.No.1) the Authorized Dealer for Rs.21,000/- on 09.11.2015. The product had 5 years extended warranty period mentioned as “Videocon Extended Warranty (1+4)”. The LED showed defect & which is within the extended warranty period. The complainant purchased the product for the use of his family. During the time of purchase the O.P. No. 1 has given phone number to the complainant in case any problem he may contact with that phone number & register a complain & the technician has came to his home on visit & remove the defect. After six months the LED shows some defect & the complainant made a telephone call to the customer care center & they send an authorized technician to his home and clear the defect of the LED and the LED is functioning smoothly. The complainant paid Rs.4,000/- in every visit of authorized technician but the technician never give any receipt to him rather told that O.P. did not give any receipt book to him to give the complainant. On 02.09.2018 abnormal picture appeared on the screen of the LED and the complainant made a telephone call to the customer care center. On 05.09.2018 the authorized technician visited the complainant home and check the LED, after some time he told that some important internal part of LED got damaged so it has to changed and he will came with new parts and LED will be corrected but the technician did not come till filing of the complaint hence this complaint.
Complainant filed following documents in support of his case.
- Invoice No. RI(N) 2654 dtd.09.11.2015,
- Instruction Manual,
- Warranty Card,
- Extended Warranty Card, and
- Office copy of legal notice dtd.22.10.2020 & postal receipt.
Notice is issued to O.P. No.2 & 3 they neither appear nor submit any written statement in this commission. O.P. No.1, the Biswal Sales Corporation stated that, O.P. No.1 is an authorized dealer of many have appliances company like LG, Samsung, Sony & Videocon etc. The complainant bought a LED of Videocon company from his shop. O.P. No.1 has no authority to give service to purchasers after buying the appliances. The manufacturing companies have separated the sales & services system & they provide a customer care toll free number for providing services to the customer. After sales of a product the dealer has no responsibility for the service or repair of the said appliances. On the basis of pleadings & documents available on record the following issues are framed.
Issue No.1 .
Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
It seen from document on record that the complainant has purchased an Videocon LED for Rs.21,000/- for own use on payment of consideration. So the complainant is a consumer as per Section 7 of C.P. Act, 2019. So Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Issue No.2.
Whether this Commission has got jurisdiction to try this case & whether the case has been filed within time limit ?
The complainant is a permanent resident of this Commission & the O.P. has also business set up within this Commission’s jurisdiction.
The value of claim & dispute being Rs.21,000/- is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is also within the time limit i.e. 2 years. So this Commission has got jurisdiction to try this case.
Issue No. 3.
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
It is undisputed that LED was purchased from O.P. No.1 for consideration of Rs.21,000/- on 09.11.2015. After use of six months the product became defective & the authorized technician also visit the complainant’s house & repaired the LED once, but the LED shows again defect on 02.08.2018 & the authorized technician came to the complainant’s house on 05.09.2018 & said to change some internal parts of the LED & has to use within 2-3 days with new parts to repair the LED, but did not come & the LED became unuseful for the complainant since then. As the product has defect within the warranty or extended warranty period the O.P. should repair the product within free of cost. Rather O.P. No.1 stated that as he is an authorized dealer & his responsibility is to sell the product which is not on justiciable reason, the O.P.No.1 can co-ordinate with the manufacturing unit to rectify the product but the O.P.No.1 try to escape that he has no role with repair of the product.
So the O.P.No.1, 2 & 3 jointly liable for negligence on their part which creates deficiency of service on their part.
O R D E R.
In the result, complaint be and same is allowed against O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the defective LED with a new one of the same make, model & size and if it fails to replace the LED shall refund the cost of LED. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be carried out within 30 days from receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 15th day of March 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
