DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

 C.C. No.175/2022

Date of Filing:                       Date of Admission:                 Date of Disposal:

    26.05.2022                           09.06.2022                                          12.05.2023

P R E S E N T                 :-     Smt. Sukla Sengupta…………………..President

 :-      Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.

                                        :-     Sri.  Abhijit Basu      …………………. Member.

          JUDGMENT

          This is an application under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 filed by the complainant stating intera-lia that the O.P. No.1is the manufacturer and the O.P. No.2 is the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.1 and both the O.Ps are running their business within the jurisdiction of this commission.

          It is further stated by the complainant that the complainant purchased one TCL 108 cm (43 inches) HD Certified Android Smart LED TV being Model No. 43S6500FS (black) (2020 Model) on 23.04.2021 from the O.P. No.1 at a consideration of Rs. 25,890/- through On-line with an warranty of 36 months from the date of purchase of the above mentioned T.V. set.

          It is further case of the complainant that after six months of the purchase complication arose in the said T.V at the time of watching the same few multicoloured vertical and horizontal lines appeared on the left and right side of the T.V screen forming a rectangular shape and then automatically shut down. Immediately on January, 2022 i.e. within the warranty period the complainant informed the O.P. No.2 for the service and then one technician. The O.P. No.2 after observation a technician suggested that the panel of the said TV should be

Contd/-2

C.C. No.175/2022

:: 2 ::

changed and the said technician placed an order of the said panel before the O.P. No.1 i.e. the manufacturer. On 23.02.2022 the complainant sent representation through e-mail to the O.P. No.1and also informed their customer care with a request to supply the said panel for repairing the T.V. set in question. The  complainant informed by the customer care of the O.P. No.1 that the order was rejected but they assured the complainant that they will replace the said T.V with a new model and they asked the complainant to provide the registered mobile number. Accordingly the complainant supplied her registered mobile number to the customer care of the O.P. No.1 but she did not get any response from their end till date. The complainant further stated that on repeated occasions she requested the O.P. No.1 through e-mail either to give proper service of the defective T.V. set or replace the same by a new one. One of the Sales Manager of the O.P. No.1informed the complainant that the said T.V set cannot be repaired but it will be replaced and the said Sales Manager wanted to provide the complainant an old T.V set without extension of warranty period. But the complainant did not agree to accept the same. On 15.03.2022 the complainant again requested the O.P. No.1 to replace the T.V. set question but the O.P. did not give any response. Hence under such circumstances without having any other alternative and as she was harassed by the negligence of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, the complainant filed the petition of complaint before this commission with a prayer to give direction to the O.Ps either to replace the defective T.V. set by new one or to refund the consideration amount of Rs.. 25,890/-along with 12% interest p.a. on and from 23.04.2021 till realization.  

          The complainant also paid for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

          From the materials on record it appears that the opposite parties received the notice on 30.06.2022 but did not appear before this commission and no written version has yet been filed on their behalf. As a result the case do run exparte by this commission vide order dated 23.08.2022.

          In view of the above stated pleadings the point of consideration before this commission are as follows:-

1.Is the case maintainable?

2.Is the complainant a consumer?

3.Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps?

4. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

          All the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

Contd/-3

C.C. No.175/2022

:: 3 ::

          On careful consideration of the materials on record and position of law it is revealed that both the parties to this case are residing within the ambit of territorial jurisdiction of this commission and the valuation of this case is also well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission.

          The complainant filed the case within the period of limitation. Hence considering all these matters it is opined by this commission that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law.

          From the annexure ‘A’ which is the bills/ vouchers/ cash memo of the T.V set in question it appears that the complainant purchased the T.V. set from the O.P. No.1 being TCL 108 cm (43 inches) full HD Certified Android /Smart LED T.V being model 43S6500FS (black) (2020 model) on 23.04.2021 at a consideration of Rs. 25,890/-. This document has given the full support to the complainant’s case that she purchased the LED T.V set in question from the O.P. No.1 on payment of a sum of Rs. 25,890/- only (annexure ‘A’). So, since purchase of the LED T.V set in question from the O.P. No.1 and as the O.P. No.2 is the servicing centre of the O.P. No.1the complainant became the consumer and the opposite parties are the service provider.

          From the unchallenged testimony of the complainant and also from the documents as submitted by the complainant along with her petition of complaint it appears that she purchased the T.V. set in question from the O.P. No.1 there was warranty (A) in respect of the T.V set in question.

          It is further case of the complainant that after six months complications  arose in the said T.V. set and during watching the T.V few multicolored vertical and horizontal lines appeared in the T.V screen forming a rectangular shape and then automatically shut down. The complainant immediately informed the matter to the O.P. No.2 and after examining the T.V. set in question by its technician it is found that either the panel of the T.V set would be changed or it would be replaced by a new one. The complainant then informed the matter to the O.P. No.1 and its customer care but the O.P. No.1 did not replace the defective T.V set by a new one, they did not refund the valuation also. So from the evidence and materials as available in the case record it is palpably clear that the complainant took all sorts of efforts within the warranty period either to repair the T.V. set or to replace it by a new one but in spite of her repeated requests the opposite parties did not pay any attention to her requests rather they caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant by their negligence and ignorance. So, from the conduct of the opposite parties it is palpably established that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 which caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant- consumer which cannot be adored by this commission.

Contd/-4

C.C. No.175/2022

:: 4 ::

          Under such circumstances it is opined by this commission that the complainant could be able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubt and he entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

          All the points are hereby considered and decided favorably to the complainant.

          The case is properly stamped.

Hence, it is ordered,

          that the case be and the same is decreed exparte against both the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

          The complainant do get the decree as prayed for.

          The opposite parties are directed either to replace a defective T.V. set as described above by a new one or refunding the price of Rs. 25,890/- to the complainant either jointly and severally along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing by this case till realization within 45 days from the date of this order.

          The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of
Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for harassment, mental pain and agony along with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order.

          If the O.Ps would fail to execute the decree within the stipulated period as mentioned above the complainant will be at liberty to execute the same as per law.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

President

Member                                            Member                             President