Minakshi Chakroborty, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that on 13.11.2019 the complainant purchased a new 14” color TV brand name Western from the opposite party by paying of Rs. 4100.00/- and the opposite party issued an approval slip and also issued a warranty card for the period of twelve months and thereafter the complainant faced several problems on his TV during the warranty period and he went to the opposite party and asked about the picture tube problem and on 2.12.2019 after checking the opposite party said TV the opposite party replaced a new same brand color TV with a warranty card which is further extended for 12 months but the said problem of the said new color TV has not been disappeared and said picture tube problem of the said new one has also been arises and then the complainant further went to the opposite party and asked about the said problem and they repaired it on 7.2.2020 but the said problem has not been removed and every times he rushed to the opposite party and they repaired it on 17.2.2020, 19.2.2020, 14.3.2020, 4.7.2020 and 25.8.2020 simultaneously but the said problem has not been removed. When the complainant asked about the problem to the opposite party, in reply they said to leave the TV on their shop and they will repair the problem but till date there was no fruitful result. The opposite party neither repairs the problem nor refunds the money of the TV.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to replace the said new 14” colour TV on same company or other company in same price and to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest and to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for worries and anxieties and depriving of his enjoyment and to pay the cost of the case and to give any relief/ reliefs which deem fit and proper.
The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that they rendering their service after sale with reasonable care within one year of the warranty period and the complainant also admitted that he got service from 13.11.2019 to 25.8.2020 and whenever the complainant came with a complaint in respect of the alleged sold TV the op at once called the company technician and repaired properly and advised not to install the said TV in room which is full of damp and moisture and he should keep the proper arrangement to wrap or use cover with wooden box but the complainant did not pay any heed to their advice and the problem has been arisen due to manhandling to use of the customer. The opposite party rendered his best service during warranty period and advised the complainant to leave the TV on their showrooms that they send the alleged TV to the company production and maintenance unit and so that the alleged picture tube may be replaced but the complainant did not pay any heed to their advice and threatened them with dire consequences. The opposite party did not replace the western TV as there is no provision of replacement for customer to change the company brand LG to Western TV. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable and should be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Issue No: 1
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in as much as he has purchased one 14” colour T.V. brand name – Western from the opposite party on 13.11.2019 by paying Rs. 4,100.
Issue No: 2
- Both the complainant and the opposite party are residents and having the office of the O.P within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that the same does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. In view of above this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant proceeding.
Issue Nos: 3 & 4
Both these issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The brief note of argument (B.N.A.) dated 25.03.2022 filed by the Opposite Party specifically indicates in its argument that the complainant purchased one L.G. 14” colour T.V. on payment of Rs. 4,100 on 13.11.2019. on the contrary the petitioner has filed the original approval sleep no. 357 dated 13.11.2019 wherefrom it appears that the same bears one L.G. 14” C.T.V. and both the words L.G. has been overwritten by the word “ Western”.
Be that as it may this Commission instead of entering into the complicated question is of opinion that one 14” colour T.V. was purchased for Rs. 4,100 on 13.11.2019.
It appears from the B.N.A. of the O.P. that at page. 6 (in point No. 9) that the O.P. has admitted it’s rendering service during the period from 07.02.2020 to 25.08.2020 which is within warrant period. This admission of O.P. to render service for six occasions undoubtedly leads this Commission to hold that the petitioner has been harassed for no fault of his own. Why a purchaser will run after the seller six times to get the T.V. set repaired does not appear to be convincing which makes this Commission to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get reliefs.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case no. 76/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest. The petitioner do get compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the value of service and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation.
The Opposite Party do pay the aforesaid quantum of money within 45 days from date. Otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.
In the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, and on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
