MR. NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER -
Unfair trade practice in respect of non-repair and non-replacement of complainant’s defective T.V. set are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint petition reveals that, complainant purchased a Sansui LEd TV on dtd. 22/10/2014, manufactured by Sansui Company on a cash payment of rs.9800/- of Model SJX20HB2 RT with the warranty card. The said TV set was purchased from authorized dealer Triveni Electricals & Electronics(OP No.1). It is alleged that after purchase of the said TV, the set developed several complaint including poor signaling, narrowing the screen, without any picture vision and audio problems, when complainant approached OP to rectify the defects, but OPs did not response to the request of repair or replacement. Such action of OPs compelled the complainant to take the TV set to Ops shop on dtd.11.10.2015., but the OPs neither repaired nor replaced the TV set, being disgusted complainant left the TV set on the shop of the OP and same is laying with the OP since then. In the circumstances, the acts of the Ops gave mental agony to the complainant and for which both the Ops are jointly and severally liable for unfair trade practice. Complainant on his complaint prayed that a direction may be given to OP to take up proper and effective repairing of the TV or to replace the same with same model and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. Being noticed, Triveni Electronics and Electricals (OP No.1) appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations of the complainant and submitting the facts, it is averred that No defect is detected in the TV set of the complainant and same is running smoothly till now. It is also averred that complainant purchased a LED TV manufactured by Sansui and Invoice, warranty card were issued to the complainant in support of the sale. As per the terms and condition of the warranty, the complainant has to inform the Sansui Company(OP No.2) on Toll free number mentioning the specific complaints, which the complainant never complies at any point of time. It is categorically stated that complainant has never brought the TV set before OP No.1 on dtd.11.10.2015 for its repair or replacement and keeping the TV set with OP No.1 shop is totally baseless and false. It is further averred that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, it is the manufacturing company is entitled to replace the same and not the dealer. Accordingly, the complainant with an oblique motive has foisted this false complaint against OP No.1, which is to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Though notice was served to M/s. Sansui Company Ltd.(OP No.2), through regd. post with AD, but OP No.2 did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence set ex-parte by this Forum vide Order No.29 dtd.19.06.2017.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 and case of the complainant on merit as non appears on behalf of the complainant on the date of hearing and ex-parte, hearing against OP No.2. In the case in hand the admitted facts are that complainant purchased a Led TV from OP No.1 dealer of Model SJX manufactured by Sansui (OP No.2) and Invoice, warranty cards were issued to the complainant in support of the sale of the LED TV.
In the complaint, it is alleged that after one to two months of purchase of the TV set, defects such as poor signaling, narrow screening etc. were detected and the same are neither eradicated nor TV set was replaced by Ops. It is the further allegation of the complainant that being disgusted in the dealings of OP No.1, the said TV set remains in shop of OP No.1 till now. On the other hand countering the allegations OP No.1-dealer states that complainant has never brought the disputed TV set to his shop for repair or replacement and keeping TV set till date as alleged by the complainant are false and baseless. OP No.1 further submits that if there is any defect the complainant has to made complaint before the manufacturing company on the toll free number for compliance of his grievances and complainant has not made any complaint before the OP No.2-manufacturing company. On the allegation of defect in the TV, no evidence or any genuine complaint is produced before the Forum. That Ops were duely intimated about defects of the TV set. No Job card, No expert opinion even a complaint on toll free no. to OP No.2 as mentioned on the warranty are not disclosed for better appreciation of facts by this Forum. When such defect and subsequent repairs/replacement are disputed by OP No.1,. In the absence of any minimum proof of defects in the alleged TV set no definite conclusion can be drawn that the TV set is/was having defects and are not repaired and replaced by the Ops, which gave mental agony to the complainant.
Now this Forum has to decide in whose possession the disputed TV set are kept till date. Complainant’s version is that when he takes the TV set to OP No.1’s shop for repair/replacement on dt. 11/10/2015 and on its non-response from OP No.1, complainant left the TV set with OP No.1, which was vehemently denies by the OP No.1. After receipt of the copy of the written statement, where OP No.1 denies having the possession of the TV set, complainant does not adduce any evidence or counter claim that the disputed TV set remains with OP No.1-dealer. It is the settled position of law that onus lies with complainant to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. If for the sake of argument, it is admitted that the disputed TV set is/was having any defect, then it will not be lawful to grant any relief. When the possession of the TV set is disputed, any order in this regard will be miscarriage of justice. In the situation, the complainant is at liberty to approach proper Court of law to redress his grievance.
Having observations, reflected above, we are of the unanimous view that Ops have not committed any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without any cost to the parties.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 21st day of July, 2017.
