Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/92

Javeed Anwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarkar Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

MK Tiwari

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 92/2018

  Date of Filing-27-07-2018

 Date of Order-02-06-2022

Javeed Anwar S/o Rizwan Ahmad,

R/s- Darid, P.O. Uttarsara, P.S. Peterwar,

District Bokaro Jharkhand.

                                      Vr.

Sarkar Electronics Bye Pass Road, Chas,

District- Bokaro Jharkhand

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

             Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

-Order-

1.  Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.P. for payment of Rs. 10,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum or for replacement of LED T.V. with new one defect free LED T.V.  and to pay Rs. 5,000/- & Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively to him.

2    Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased BPL LED 32” T.V. from   O.P. Sarkar Electronics on 23.06.2018 vide invoice No. 532 on Rs. 10,600/- but said TV was defective and not working properly hence he approached the O.P. repeatedly having no impact rather O.P. has kept the said TV set  and has not given its receipt. Further case is that legal notice was served on 30.06.2018 having no impact hence case has been filed.

 3.   O.P. appeared and has filed W.S. mentioning therein that it is true that complainant has purchased said TV from O.P. but defect which developed was due to mishandling and panel of the TV was some how broken due to fault on the part of the complainant which was not rectified and said defect was not covering under the warranty. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the case.

4.   Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get any relief as claimed ?

5.   From perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that purchase of the TV set on Rs. 10,600/- from the O.P. on 23.06.2018 is admitted fact. Another admitted fact is that just after purchase of the TV it was not found functional properly. Another admitted fact is that complainant brought the TV set in the shop of O.P. for repair but defects were not removed.  

    Further admitted fact is that legal notice dt. 30.06.2018 was served upon the O.P. However, O.P. has replied that he has given reply of that very notice but said reply has not been brought on record.

6.   It reveals from the record that the concerned TV was purchased on 23.06.2018 and legal notice was given on 30.06.2018 which shows that just after purchase of the TV it was not working satisfactorily. As per cash memo No. 532 dt. 23.06.2018 TV set was purchased on payment of Rs. 10,600/- and there was one year service free warranty of that very TV set. Therefore, O.P. cannot escape from the liability of its repair etc. to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that complainant has proved his case for relief as prayed accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant.

7.      Thus we find and hold that the claim of the complainant is being allowed in the manner indicated here in below:-

O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 10,600/- (Rs ten thousand six hundred) only or to replace the TV concerned with new one free from all defects to the complainant within 60 days from today otherwise he will pay interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 27.07.2018 (the date of filing of the case). Further O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation related to various type of harassment and Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost within 60 days from today.