West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/149/2014

Ashok Mallik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rupesh Giri - Opp.Party(s)

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.149/2014

                                                        

Ashok Mallick……………….………Complainant

Versus

Rupesh Giri……………..…………..Opp. Party.

 

 

 For the Complainant : Mr.Subrata Das, Advocate.

 For the O.P.                : Mr. Swopnatit Biswas, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 05/08/2015

                                

ORDER

        Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Sony LCD TV (32") being Model No. BX300 by paying consideration money of Rs.31,800/- from the OP-Rupesh Giri, the  proprietor of GIRI INFOTECH. At the time of purchase, OP disclosed that warranty period of that TV was 3 years and he also issued a warranty card to that effect.  On the last part of the month of February, 2013, the complainant found that the said TV was not displaying anything in the screen and not functioning. The complainant then requested the OP to repair or replace the LCD Monitor (Picture Tube) but he did not pay any heed although the warranty period of 3 years did not expire. Thereafter the complainant filed a case before this Forum which was registered as complaint case no. 45/2014. OP appeared in that case and filed W/O. After contested hearing, this Forum dismissed the case vide order dated 27/08/2014 with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint after performing due formalities.  After that order, the complainant went to the authorized service center of SONY along with the TV set and after seeing the same, service center of SONY disclosed that the LCD was manufactured in Thailand and free service is provided in Thailand only and they cannot provide free service under that warranty.  Of course, they told that they can provide paid service. The complainant then sent a

Contd…………..P/2

 

-(2)-

lawyer’s notice dated 11/09/2014  through his Advocate Mr. Subrata Das  by registered post with A/D thereby disclosing the entire fact  and with a request  to  replace/repair the same. Inspite of that, the OP did not pay any heed to such request. It is contended that the OP most illegally and without any authority, sold the said TV although he had knowledge that warranty is permissible in respect of that TV set only in Thailand and thus he has adopted an unfair trade practice. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. If at the time of purchase, the OP disclosed that the said TV is made in Thailand and warranty is provided only for Thailand, then the complainant must not purchase the same. Hence, the complaint, praying for an order directing the OP to replace or repair  the TV by a new LCD of 32" of SONY Co. and to pay Rs.25,000/-  to the petitioner as compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/-  as cost of the proceeding.     

                     The OP has contested the case by filing a W/O.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case  of the OP that the warranty of  3 years  does not relate to the TV in dispute and such, there is no deficiency  in service on the part of the OP. It is stated that in compliance of the order dated 27/08/2014 passed in earlier case no.45/2014, the complainant has not made Sony India Pvt. Ltd. as party in this case and as such, the present case is bad for defects of parties and is barred by principals of resjudicata. OP therefore claims dismissal of the case with cost.      

           

Point for decision

                        

Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons

                      At the very outset, it is to be mentioned here that neither the complainant nor the OP has adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The complainant has of course filed some documents in support of his case. It is not denied and disputed the complainant purchased that said TV in question on full payment   from the shop of the OP. It is also not denied and disputed that after 2 years of such purchase, the TV in question was not functioning. According to the complainant, he was told by the OP at the time of such purchase that the warranty period of that TV was 3 years and he was also issued a warranty card to that effect. Complainant has filed xerox copy of that warranty card where from we find that there is a remarks to the effect This warranty is valid only in Thailand.  Although the said document does not bear any seal or signature of the OP, but from the complaint-receipt issued by the Sony Authorised Service Centre, Videoplaza, Bibigunge, Midnapore, we find that said TV set in question was taken to the said service center on 01/09/2014 by the complainant and on examination of the TV set, the concerned Engineer of that

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

                                                                                                        -(3)-

service center reported We are unable to do FOC service. This FOC service only provide in Thailand. We are able to provide payable service. This document supports the case of the complainant that the TV in question, which he purchased from the OP, was made in Thailand and the warranty card, which has been filed by the complainant, was supplied to him by the OP at the time of purchase of that TV set. We have already stated that the said warranty card shows that the warranty is valid in Thailand. Sony Service Centre has opined that FOC service of that particular TV set is provided only in Thailand. It thus appear that the OP has sold  such a product of TV set,  free service of which   within the warranty period of  3 years,  is provided in Thailand. It is not expected that a person of India would take a TV set to Thailand for availing   free services under warranty. We thus find that OP has sold the said TV set to the complainant by adopting an illegal and unfair trade practice. In view of that, we have no hesitation   to hold that the complainant’s case is proved and he is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for.

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                            Ordered,

                                                                           that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest with cost against the OP-Rupesh Giri, the proprietor of GIRI INFOTECH.  OP is directed to replace the said TV set by a new Sony LCD TV  of same model, made in India and he is further directed to pay  Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a period of one month from  the date of this order. Op is also hereby restrained from continuing such unfair trade practice.           

Dictated & Corrected by me

              Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                         Sd/-

         President                           Member                              Member                                 President

                                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur