West Bengal

Maldah

CC/26/2015

Keya Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor , Raj Electronic - Opp.Party(s)

Devi Goswami

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDAH
Satya Chowdhury Indoor Stadium,DSA Complex.
PO. Dist.- Maldah
 
Complaint Case No. CC/26/2015
 
1. Keya Goswami
D/o Lt.Krishna bandhu goswami, Omkardham, Kutubpur
Malda
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Proprietor , Raj Electronic
Rabindra Avenue
Malda
West bengal
2. Branch Manager, Regional Service
The Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., 10A pressman house,2nd Floor, Lee Road,lala Rajpath Rai Sarani
Kolkata
West Bengal
3. The Chief Authority
The Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon,golf Course Road, Sector-43
Gurgaon
hariyana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Debi Prasad Mallik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Shri.D.Mukhopadhyay MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Devi Goswami, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

This case has been filed by Keya Goswami u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Raj Electronics, Malda praying for relief to have replacement of a T.V. found to be defective or cost refund of Rs. 22400/- along with 12% interest and compensation and litigation cost of Rs. 15000/- each.  The petitioner did not get response of O.P. regarding her claim of getting working T.V. and hence this case.

 

The further case of the petitioner Smt. Keya Goswami D/o. Late Dr. Krishna Bandhu Goswami residing at ‘Onkardham’ Kutubpur, English Bazar, Malda purchased one Samsung make LCD T.V. from Raj Electronics, 82/93 Rabindra Avenue, Malda on 25.02.2013 and that did not  function well after one or two months of purchase and that after request respondents did not supply warranty card and thus filed this case praying for order to have replacement of the T.V. or refund of the cost money and litigation cost and compensation along with O.P’s did not appear and did not contest the case and hence the case heard against O.P’s on ex parte basis

 

On the basis of respective case the following issues are framed:-

 

  1. Whether the case is maintainable?
  2. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
  3. Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the
  4.  
  5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

           

                                   : DECISION WITH REASONS::

 

Issue Nos. 1,2,3 and 4

           

    All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration and also all these issues are interrelated and interdependent.

              

            In support of her case the petitioner submitted 02 documents Ext.-1 and Ext.-2 while deposing in support of the case. Ext. -1 is related to medical treatment of petitioner and is entitled for condone prayer of delay in filing the case for 25 days which was condoned. Ext.-2 is the challan regarding purchase of Samsung LCD TV for Rs.22400/- from Raj Electronics. The petitioner on examination corroborated the facts of petition.

 

  The Forum looking into the submission of complainant and her evidence, found that the petitioner purchased one TV set from O.P. -1 Raj Electronics, Malda and that did not function properly after a month or two and the O.P. being repeated informed of the malfunctioning of the problem O.P. did not pay heed to the request of the petitioner and did not take any steps to rectify the newly purchased T.V.  of Samsung Brand.

 

  The Forum also find from the various documents submitted by petitioner at the time of the filing case, besides intimation of   non-working   of

 

T.V. Petitioners lawyer sent notice upon O.P. describing the details of the problems related to the purchase of the branded T.V. and in this scenario also O.P. did not take any steps to address the problems of  the purchaser of their

T.V.

 

          In view of non-appearance of O.P. for contesting the case or taking not a single action regarding redressal of the grievances of the petitioner as reflected in her petition with corroboration by her of the facts of the petition, it is established that in spite of paying full value of purchased T.V. the petitioner as a customer could not get full value for the money she paid and also suffered for not getting a workable T.V. and the same that is new but problematic T.V. is not being looked into by the seller that is the opposite parties and O.P’s are compelled to adhere to the demand of petitioner for a new T.V. or refund of money paid by petitioner for the T.V.

 

          The Forum concludes that the petitioner was able to prove her case.

 

In the result, the case succeeds.

 

Proper fee paid.

 

 

Hence,                                             ordered

 

that the D.F.C. Case No. 26/2015 be and the same is allowed on ex parte basis against O.P. 1 and O.P.2 with cost. The petitioner is entitled to replacement of her T.V. with a new one or to get refund of Rs. 22400/- as cost of T.V. O.P.1 and O.P.2 are directed to replace the T.V. or payment of Rs.22400/- within 30 days of this order failing the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.

 

           Let a copy of this order be served to the petitioner free of cost and sent copy of the order to all the O.P’s by registered post.  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Debi Prasad Mallik]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri.D.Mukhopadhyay]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.