Orissa

Jajapur

CC/39/2017

Rasmita Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar Pahil

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

      IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.   

                                              Dated the 13th day of November,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.39 of 2017

Rasmita Das   W/O Somakanta Das  

Vill. Angargadia , P.O. Bankamuhan,

P.S. Bhandaripokhari , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Sony India Pvt,Ltd, Registered office, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate

   Mathura Road , New Delhi.

2.Shreejal Service,Sony Authorised service center, plot No203/2901/196/2977

Unit-34 Sriram nagar , Badambadi,Cuttack.

3.Proprietor of M/S S.J.J Sales ,in front of S.B I, Jajpur Routrapur,

At/P.O/P.S/Dist. jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                Mr. Ashok Kumar Pahil, Advocate

For the Opp.Parties :No :1        MS Shweta Bharati, Mr.Anil Tiwari, Mr.Jagannath P.Pati, Adv.

For the Opp.Parties No.3          Mr. Promod Ku.mohapatra,Advocate.

For the Opp.parties no.2            None.

                                                                                                       Date of order:  13.11.2017.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,  MEMBER  .

            This is a dispute wherein the petitioner not only alleges deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the O.ps due to non providing essential service during warranty period as well as non return of  the alleged LED T.V  Set .

            The fact which has been stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition is that the petitioner purchased  a SONY 22” LED T.V model –R-402  from O.P.no.3  namely  Proprietor  of M/S J.J.Sales  of Vill.Routrapur ,jajpur town on dt.10. 09.14  by paying the  consideration amount of Rs.12,400/-.  The said LED set contains  one year  warranty from the date of purchase.  As per allegation of the petitioner after purchase of the said LED TV set  did not function properly . Thereafter he lodged complain before O.P.no.3 and as per instruction of O.P.no.3 , the O.P.no.2 who is the authorized service center of O.P.no.1 send his technician  to the house of the petitioner

on dt 20.4.15 for rectifying the problem. But the technician failed  to rectify the problem of the said LED TV set and disclosed  that this defect can  only be  rectified in  the service center of O.P.No.2

and took back the entire LED  TV set from  him by providing an acknowledgement / job sheet to the petitioner.  Thereafter the petitioner ran  to the office of O..P.no 1 and shop of O.P.no.3 till 14.09.16 to return back his TV  set but  the O.P.no.2 and o.p.no. 3 neither  removed  the defect in  the LED TV  set nor given any satisfactory reply to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner served a advocate  notice to all the O.ps dt.14.09.16 but the O.ps after receipt of the notice remained silent.

            Accordingly the petitioner  finding no other alternative  knocked the door of this fora with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay the cost of the LED T.V set with interest amounting to Rs.15,000 along with pay Rs.51,000/ as compensation  for mental agony, harassment  and litigation cost.

            The O.Ps entered  appearance and  filed  their written version   taking  the plea that :

The present complaint filed by the complainant  is replete  with inconsistent  averments and is an apt illustration of  flagrant  abuse of the benevolent provision of the Act  and the complaint under reply deserves no indulgence  from the Hon’ble  Forum as the same is lacking on merit . The complainant  has not approached the Hon’ble  Forum with clean hands and concealed  material facts so as to cause wrongful gain and  wrongful  loss to the O.Ps. The O.P has no clue about any  issue faced by the complainant  with respect to the T.V set   bearing model  no. KLV-22R402B  allegedly purchased by the complainant from O.P.no.3 on 10.04.14 .  After receipt of notice of the present complaint the O.P  made  details  inquiry  into their service matter. But no details  of any sort was found  even the complainant has not produced any job sheet to prove that  he has contacted the O. Ps with any service request. The job sheet is prepared by the service engineer wherein the details of the defects are mentioned  and the customer asked to signed the said  job sheet .   The original of the job sheet is handed over  to the complainant and the duplicate is retained  by the service center. The complainant has not produced any such job sheet to prove that he ever approached any of the authorized service center for any service  request. Therefore the allegation of the complainant.  in the present  complaint.  are  nothing but  a bundle of  lie and falsehood .The complainant also alleged that  he made complaint with O.p.no.3 regarding non functioning of the T.V set and the mechanic from O.P.no.3 visited the house of the complainant  dt. 20.04.15  and took away the T.V  set for repairing .  However , the complainant  has miserably  failed  to support his averment  by any  documentary evidence . he has not given any document such as job sheet/ receipt etc . The allegation made in the complaint that the T.V set was  taken over for repairing . The complainant  issued a legal notice on 14.09.16 i.e  after  one year and 5 months of

the incident .  The said averment are hard to  believe as no prudent person will  wait  for one year  and 5 months for repairing  of the T.V  set .  Thus in absence  of any documentary evidence  the allegation of the complainant are  baseless and without any rhyme or reasoning and defy the logic. That as per the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation . As per the complainant’s  is own admission the complainant has  purchased the T.V  set   on 20.04.14 and the complaint has been filed in  May’2017 i.e much beyond the expiry of the limitation period of two years . Hence the present case is liable to be dismissed . In  view of the above facts and circumstance it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the  Hon’ble  Fourm may please  to dismiss  the complaint  with exemplary cost.

            In the peculiar circumstances  of the assertion and counter assertions  taken by both the parties on the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned counsel for both the parties .  After perusal of the record and document we observed  that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the LED TV  set from O.P.no.3 vide cash memo -2855 dt.10.09.14 paying  consideration  amount Rs.12,400/- . It is also a undisputed fact that  during the warranty period after the complain lodged by the petitioner before O.P.no.3 the technician of O.Pno.2 ( which  is the authorized service  center of O.P .1 )  visited the house of the petitioner for rectifying the  problem of the alleged TV set. It is also a fact that after purchase of the said TV set it did not work properly for which the petitioner lodged complain before O.P no.3 (seller of T.V set ) .  That  the technician of O.P.no.2   fails to rectify the problem of the alleged T.V  set in the premises of the petitioner  and disclosed that the problem can be resolved only in the authorized service center of O.P.no.2 and took back the alleged T.V  set with him by providing a acknowledgement / job sheet to the petitioner  on dt.  20.04.15  .where as mentioned that “ total set call back to ASC” .This job sheet contains logo  of SONY  authorized service center but the O.P  categorically denied the same. In this peculiar circumstances when we verified the job sheet filed from the side of the petitioner we observed  that the technician  of O.P.no.2 when took  back the entire  set to the service center of O.P.no.2 produced the acknowledgment / job sheet of the service center indicating  the same and handed over to the petitioner ,  when the O.Ps  did not return back   the T.V  set after repairing  to the petitioner the petitioner also served the legal notice to all the O.Ps dt.  14.09.16 .  But the O.Ps remained  silent  about the matter.  As a result the petitioner was constrain to file the  present proceeding .

“None  reply of legal notice may draw adverse inference’ in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(1)-CPR-456-N.C.

 

O R D E R

The dispute is allowed  against the O.Ps . The O.Ps  are directed to pay Rs.12,400/-  the  cost of the LED TV  set along with pay  compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony, harassment and litigation cost within one month after receipt of this order , failing which the awarded amount will carry 12 % interest from the date of filling  of the present dispute till its realization   No cost.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13th day of November,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.