FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
This is an application filed by the complainant U/s 35 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP.
The fact of the case in brief is that in the end of the month of August, 2018, the complainant purchased one Zebronics Halo 4.1 Multi Media Home Theatre System, Serial No. ZEBHGHALO 4.08 170387 from the store of the OPs at a consideration of Rs. 6,999/- only.
It is stated by the complainant that the OP promised some features and services before purchasing the above mentioned Home Theatre System namely as follows.
- two years warranty from manufacturer
- onsite warranty
- Each of the four speakers units has two speakers, one at the top and another at the bottom being convinced with the promise of the OP Seller.
The complainant purchased the Home Theater on good faith. Subsequently, when it is set up the home theatre at his residence, it is found that only one speaker was functioning out of two speakers in each unit and it was abruptly functioning properly during the month of July, 2019.
The complainant immediately reported the matter to the OP over telephone. The OP asked the complainant to visit his store. thereafter, he took the first bill issued at the time of purchase mentioning two years warranty and issued a second bill dated 15.08.2019 (cash memo No. SRJE1800) mentioning one year warranty by the company manufacturer. The photocopy of the said bill is attached with the petition of complaint. When the complainant claimed the onsite warranty, the OP stated that the company has stopped such service and asked the complainant took the alleged home theater system to the service centre giving the address of the service centre on the reverse page of the cash memo dated 15.08.2019. Accordingly, the complainant brought the alleged home theater system to the service center dated 06.2.2020 but the man of the service centre denied the warranty that period has already been over then the complainant made contact with the OP/seller who asked him to handover the alleged Home Theater set to the OP and he also stated that he call the company technician at his store for the purpose of repairing Home Theater then the complainant handed over the Home Theatre to the OPs store on the same self date dated 06.02.2020. Thereafter, the complainant made contact with the OP after expiry of the sufficient time but the OP surprisingly told him that he has forgotten to repair the unit and again requested some times for repairing work of the alleged home theater set. Thereafter in between 12 July 2014 and 14 July 2020, the complainant made contact with the OP then the OP confirmed in that the repairing work of the alleged home theater has been done and asked the complainant to take delivery of alleged Home Theater after 3 days. but when on 22 July 2020, the complainant visited the store of OP, the OP told him that the alleged Home Theatre has completely damaged at the place of the technician during Amphan due to water log and he asked the complainant to take any speaker system under the name and style Zebronics Samba which was much bellow the price of Zeobrnic Hello 4.1. Thereafter, the complainant served a notice upon the OP dated 28.07.2020 and photocopy of said letter attached to the petition of complaint the said letter was duly received by the OP on 03.08.2020 and then the OP called the complainant and stated that suddenly the original home theater in question has been found and asked the complainant to deliver the same after two working days. Accordingly on 07.08.2020, the complainant went to the store of the OP to take back the alleged Home Theatre System and found that the speaker grill of the same has been discolored and the unit was painted in spite of the same the complainant took delivery of the same in question after signing reiteration of the paper prepared by the OP. The photocopy of the said letter was attached with the petition of complaint.
The damage Home Theater System was returned to the OP by issuing letter of the same. The OP did not take any fruitful steps. Hence, instant petition of complaint is filed by the complaint with a prayer to give direction to the OP to refund the price of the Home Theater System amounting to Rs. 6,999/- only along with interest @ 20 % on the said amount.
The complainant further prayed for giving direction to the OP for giving compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant for harassment , mental pain and agony along with cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
The OP has contested the claim application by filing WV denying all the material allegation leveled against him.
It is stated by the OP that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.
OP further stated that admittedly the complainant purchased the alleged home theater system from his store and thereafter, he came to the store of the OP with that home theater system with allegation that there was problem in functioning of the same. The OP then repaired the same and the complainant gave the letter that he is satisfied and he would have no claim in future over the alleged home theater issue on 07.08.2020. So, the petition of complaint is baseless and concocted and liable to be dismissed.
In view stated above pleadings, points of consideration are as follows.
- Whether the case is maintainable or not?
2. Have the complainants any cause of action to file the case?
3. Are the complainants consumer?
4. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
5. Are the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All the points of considerations are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
On a close scrutiny of the materials on record, fact and circumstances, and position of law it is found that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law and the commission has got ample jurisdiction to try this commission in all respect.
Admittedly, the complainant purchased the subject Home Theater from the OP at a consideration of Rs. 6,999/-. So, he is a consumer within the ambit of CP Act, 2019.
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Home Theatre System under the nomenclature Zebronics Hello 4.1 Multi Media Home Theatre System Serial No. ZEBHGHALO408170387 from the store of OP at a consideration of Rs. 6,999/-.
It is alleged by the complainant in the petition of complaint in his evidence in chief, that at the time of purchase of the alleged Home Theatre system, it was mentioned by the OP that the warranty was for 2 years but when the functioning of Home Theatre System in question was damaged then he went to the store of the OP and the OP then issued a fresh bill to the complainant mentioning the warranty period was for 1 year which is attached to the case record.
The OP/seller admitted the fact that the complainant has purchased the Home Theatre System in question from his shop at a consideration of Rs. 6,999/- only and stated that the warranty period was for 1 year.
The OP further stated that some dispute was there in Home Theatre System and it was repaired. The complainant stated that he is satisfied with the repairing work and condition of Home Theatre System and he has no claim further to that effect but the complainant alleged that in between 12 July to 14 July 2014. He called up the OP when the OP confirmed that repaired work was done then the complainant visited the store of the OP on 22nd July, 14July, 2020 and came to know that the home theatre system in question was missing but now it is find out and that would be handed over the complainant on 2 August, 2020.
The complainant further alleged that on 08 August, 2020 against the system once again stop working and he prayed for return of consideration money along with interest but on a close scrutiny of the materials on record, no such document is found on the record from which it can be held by this commission that the warranty period was for 2 years. The home theater system might be stop its working or functioning but that was beyond the warranty period. So, the complainant cannot claim consideration of the said system because once he got delivery of the system in question from the OP by giving declaration that he is /was satisfied with the service and second time he went for repairing work for the system that was beyond the warranty period. So, after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering evidence on record, this commission is not convinced that the complainant went to the store of the OP along with home theater system for repairing within the warranty period. Moreover, long after two years from the date of purchase of the subject Home theater he cannot claim refund of the consideration money after using the articles for two years or cannot claim any new one in the form of replacement which indulged this commission to hold the view that the complainant being a consumer failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt against the OP.
So, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the OP does not arise at all. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
All the points are considered and decided in favour of the complainant.
The case is properly stamped.
Hence,
Ordered
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal.
