Date of Filing: 10.02.2020
Date of Judgment: 25.11.2021
Sri Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member .
This is a complaint under section 13 ( C ) of the C.P Act, 1986 made by Sri Gopal Sil ,son of late Narayan Chandra Sil, residing at C-49, Charu Chandra Place, East, Kartiker Pariber, Tollygunge Russa Road, Kolkata – 700 033 against 1) Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , Authrosied Dealer of all kinds of electrical goods ,branch at 11, Deshapran Sashmal Road, P.O-Tollygunge, P.S – Charu Market, Kolkata – 700 033 ( O.P no.1), 2) Anjan Bhattachajee , an employee of Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , 11, Deshapran Sashmal Road, P.O-Tollygunge, P.S – Charu Market, Kolkata – 700 033, (O.P no.2) 3) The Authority, office address- White Goods Extended Warrantee Department , Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th Floor, B Wing, GE-Plaza, Yerwada , Pune -411006 ( O.P no.3) & 4) The Authority, Head Office-GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada , Pune-411006 (O.P no.4), alleging that the O.ps have sold substandard and worthless goods and as such praying for a direction upon the O.ps to release the amount paid i.e Rs. 27,079/- towards purchasing the TV along with interest @18% p.a with effect from 2015 till realisation of the said amount.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
The complainant purchased the Sony Led-28R412B Television Set for Rs. 24,900/- on 14.2.20215 from the dealer i.e O.P no.1 by paying cash of Rs. 10,747/- and balance amount in instalment @ Rs.1361/- for 12 months amounting to Rs.16,332/- and thus paid a total sum of Rs.27079/-.
The petitioner entered into an agreement with O.P nos. 3 and 4 i.e Bajaj Alianz for the extended warrantee with effect from 14.2.2016 to 13.2.2018 and also for the EMI instalment. Thereafter, the said LED TV was not showing any picture on the led screen and as such the same was given for repairing on 18.7.2017 . On behalf of the insurer Bajaj Alianz , the same was received by O.p no.2 namely Anjan Bhattacharjee ,who is an employee of O.P no.1 against which O.P no.2 delivered a claim summary sheet after the repairs of the said led TV . But after repair some black dots on the screen was displayed and the same was again given for repairing on 22.12.2017 against which a claim summary sheet was again issued . The complainant has also stated in his petition of complaint that the Led TV is still in the custody of O.P no.1 i.e Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd. , Tollygugne Branch. But due to bad experience the complainant refused to receive the LED TV and wanted to get back the amount paid even though there was telephonic discussion between the O.Ps and the petitioner on several occasions, to receive the TV after repair. The O.Ps Bajaj Alianz Company Ltd. lastly sent a letter to the petitioner stating that “No claim for non-cooperation” and finally they closed the file of the petitioner. The complainant has also alleged that he did not know whether there was a ploy on the part of the O.ps to extract money from him after selling substandard worthless goods. Due to this repeated harassment by the O.Ps, the complainant sent legal notice on 23.12.2019 against which the O.Ps remained silent .
Thus, finding no other remedy, the complainant filed this case before this Commission for relief .
Notices were served upon all the O.ps but the O.Ps did not contest this case by filing written version and finally the matter was heard exparte vide order no.10 dated 23.2.2021 .
In order to reiterate his case the complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief and thereafter BNA is also filed by the complainant. Complainant has also filed certain documents i.e original Invoice, Claim Summary sheet and extended warrantee transcript proposal and one original letter dated 2.2.2018 issued by Bajaj Alianz in order to prove his case.
MAIN POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the case is maintainable for deficiency in services on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Before entering into the merits of the complaint , at the very outset we are to mention important legal aspects.
It may be noted that the delivery of judgment was fixed on 16.11.2021 but while writing judgment it has been noticed that the manufacturer of the said Sony Led TV has not been made a party and the same was pointed out to the Ld. Advocate of the complainant as mentioned in order no.16 dated 16.11.2021 against which he submitted that the manufacturer is not required to be added as party as the dealer is already on record.
But this instant case is filed by the complainant alleging for substandard goods for which he is claiming for the refund of amount from the O.Ps. But it is settled principle of law that if the product is defective that can only be assessed by the Manufacturer who is not made party in this case. Inspite of getting opportunity, the complainant did not bother to adhere to the observations made by this Commission . Hence, under such circumstances we have no other options but to dismiss the complaint being not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Since the case is not maintainable, as such there is no scope to enter into the merit of the case.
Hence,
ORDERED
That CC/63/2020 is dismissed exparte.
However, complainant is at liberty to file the case afresh according to law on same cause of action.
