Order-14.

Date-14.

Complainant Shri Soumya Saha by filing this complaint has allegedthat he purchased AKAI 32LW7-32 LCD Serial No. 930807010312800188 on 20.04.2008 from Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., P-273, Manicktala Main Road, P.S.-Manicktala, Kolkata – 700054 and complainant did not get any proper service from the said LCD due to some defect and it was reported on 04.07.2014, 10.10.2014 & 14.10.2014 vide Serial No. KOL0407140102, 1010140147 & 1410140223 respectively with Tek Care authorized Service Centre of Akai Television Ltd. and it was inspected by Tek Care P. Ltd. lastly on 04.07.2014 & 18.10.2014 but it has not been repaired.  Though there was warranty and warranty is for 7 years and complainant prayed for replacement of the defective part and to make the LCD set in order and compensation and for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, litigation cost and cause of action was arisen on 04.07.2014.

          On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that the entire liability upon the op, but it is admitted by the op no.1 on 20.04.2008.  Complainant purchased the said TV from Great Eastern Appliances P. Ltd.op no.2 on 14.07.2014 and as per Tek Care company during warranty period the representative from the Centre went for inspection of the said complaint for proper redressal of the complaint and did the formalities accordingly for convenience of the valued customer i.e. the complainant and on subsequent dates the complainant further negotiated/proceeded for the compensation for damage occurred but after inspection it was evident that there was legal impediment to give any sort of redressal from the end of op no.1 due to defective procedure and formalities from the complainant and op no.2and it is mentioned here that op no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant not the op no.1 as the sell procedure was totally took place between the complainant and op no.2 vide bill no./Tax Memo No. KGC/00498/08-09 and fact remains that no warranty card was issued by the Great Eastern in proper format.  But warranty was given for two years.  So, op no.2 is fully responsible and prayed for dismissal of this case.

          On the other hand op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that complainant purchased the LCD from the shop room of op no.2 being satisfied and after observing the demonstration and after satisfaction of the customer, complainant purchased it and as per invoice if any defect is detected, it is the duty of the manufacturing company to cure it and in any defect is found in the said LCD, it is the liability of the manufacturing company and their service centre and agreed to purchase and in fact that there is no deficiency of any service or unfair trade practice performed by the op no.2 because op no.2 is not the manufacturer of the said Akai LCD TV.

          Moreover complainant failed to produce any warranty card in respect of Akai LCD TV and op no.2 is acted as communicator and mediator of the manufacturing company to the complainant and at the same time LCD is beyond the warranty period and the manufacturer and apart from that LCD and other electronics are highly sophisticated modern technology equipped product operation of which need skill and knowledge and therefore any sort of mis-handling as alleged may cause damages.  But as because complainant failed to produce any warranty card and expert opinion that whether damage or due to manufacturing defect, the complainant cannot get any relief and onus lies upon the complainant to prove the allegations of defective LCD TV and also failed to prove the liability of the op no.2 for refund of the said amount and in the above circumstances, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and written version and also considering the receipt voucher, it is proved that complainant purchased the said LCD TV on 20.04.2008 and 7 years warranty was granted by the op no.2 by putting signature with note 7 years warranty and seal of the op no.2’s company that Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

          So, considering that voucher in support of purchase of the said LCD TV, it is clear, but in this regard from the op no. 1’s own written statement it is clear that op no.2 at the time of sale did not hand over any warranty card of the manufacturing company.  But op no.2 himself is the seller gave warranty for 7 years.  Then it is the liability of the op no. 2 to take care and to give proper such sorts of service within 7 years starting from 20.04.2014.  But long prior to that during subsistence of such warranty period, the said set was found defective.  But op no.2 did not take any step, though he sold it to the complainant and told to go to the op no.1.  But op no.1 failed to give any proper service on behalf of the manufacturing company for want of warranty card and in fact warranty card was not handed over in time when it was sold to the complainant and in view of the above premises, the present complaint, op no.1 is not liable for the allegation as made by the complainant. 

          But no doubt it is proved that op no.2 is fully liable and he gave 7 years warranty.  But op no.2 showed the complainant to go to op no.1.  But anyhow op no.2 has tried to mislead the complainant in so many manners and did not give any proper service and for which complainant has suffered no doubt as the said LCD TV is not repaired and that has not been repaired by the op no.1 because op no.2 has not sold it to the complainant.

          Moreover it is known from the op no.1 that warranty for LCD TV is for only one year, but already complainant used it for 6 years when the problem was found and for which only op no.2 is liable for taking proper remedy but at the time of argument on behalf of the op no.2 Ld. Lawyer appeared and submitted that warranty was given also by op no.2 for 7 years warranty and op no.2 is willing to repair and considering that fact we are convinced to hold that op no.2 did not discharge his liability and did not give proper service as per warranty given by op no.2 and truth is that in this regard no liability can be fixed upon the op no.1 when actual warranty in respect of the product was only for one year warranty and that also expired in the year 2009.

          So, it is proved that complainant is harassed by op no.2.  So, op no.2 is liable to compensate and to make all sorts of steps to repair and make the LCD fit and pay such compensation for such negligent manner of service.

          In the result, this complaint succeeds in part.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and same is allowed on contest against the op no.2 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- but same is dismissed against op no.1 but without any cost.

          Op no.2 is hereby directed to make the LCD TV fit and usable after proper repairing after removal of such defective parts at their own cost and make it running at once and hand over a fit certificate that there is no other defect and if any further defect is found within 6 months from the date of receipt of the repaired LCD TV from the op no.2, in that case op no.2 shall have to give proper service by repairing with care at free of cost.

          For harassing the complainant in such a manner made by the op no.2 even after giving 7 years warranty and also for his mental pain, agony and not for enjoying the said TV, op no.2 shall have to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

          Op no.2 is directed to take the LCD TV from the complainant immediately on proper receipt and shall repair the same by removing all defective parts and make it usable properly and give such certificate that it is free from all defects and complainant on receipt of the same within 15 days shall report if the LCD TV is running well or not to the op no.2 and in such a manner if any problem is found, complainant shall have to report to the op no.2 about the function of the said LCD TV and it would be continued for 6 months in such a manner from the date of delivery but repairing cost and material cost shall be paid by the op no.2 for repairing and for replacing any item of the said LCD TV.

          Op no.2 is hereby directed to comply the order failing which penal action shall be started within one month from the date of this order for which op no.2 shall have to pay penal damages  at the rate Rs. 10,000/- per month which shall be deposited to this Forum and even if it is found that op is reluctant to comply the order, penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed against him.