Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/95/2020

Sudeshna Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Vishal Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.D.N.Acharya

19 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                                                   JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to replace the defective T.V. or to pay Rs.29,900/- with 18% interest and compensate Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenses”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant being a lady purchased a LED Colour TV bearing product No.LLOYD 39, L39FN2, L201569A17D-06668 of Rs.29,900/- from Proprietor, Vishal Electronics (O.P. No.1) and the LED TV is of LLOYD Company i.e. opposite party No.2 is the Production Manager, LLOYD Electronic & Engineering Ltd. New Delhi on 09.6.2020 and the complainant informed it to opposite party No.2 and the opposite party registered a complaint vide service request No.0606205169349 for schedule visit of the technician on 08.6.2020. Opposite party No.2 deputed his technical person who inspect the LED TV on 09.6.2020 and suggested that the required instrument of the defective TV and its spare parts is not presently available in the market for which the product cannot be repaired and needs replacement and they shall intimate the company accordingly. Even after expiry of two months, the opposite party did not take any action over the product, hence this complaint.    

            The complainant filed Xerox copy of the following documents in support of consumer complaint;

1. Cash Memo.
2. Warranty Card.
3. Finance certificate.
4. Download copy of the messages.

Notice was issued on 17.7.2020 to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 submitted his written version by its counsel and stated that after defect arose in the product, the complainant registered a complaint vide complaint No.0606205169349 and technician of the opposite party No.2 admitted the defect and already suggested directly to opposite party No.2 to replace the product. So there is no role on the part of the opposite party No.1. So his name may be dropped from the above case.

The notice issued to opposite parties was made sufficient to the opposite party No.2 but till date opposite party No.2 did not turn up. So it is clear from the above circumstances that the opposite party No.2 has nothing to say in the matter. Complainant is a consumer, who has been duped by opposite party No.2. It is clear negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.

Since the complainant has purchased the product for theentertainment with family and the entire family members are deprived of watching the TV within the warranty period of the new TV set, it is proved that the product was not up to standard and expectation and the opposite party No.2 has deliberately and intentionally avoided this Commission for which we are constrained to held that opposite party No.2 is liable for the defect in the product and he has not supplied good product for which the defect was pointed out within the warranty period.

We therefore direct the opposite party No.2 to replace the product or give Rs.29,900/- i.e. actual price of the product to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. The opposite party No.2 is directed to give Rs.2,000/- as mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.

With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 19^th October, 2022.