West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/11/2018

Manoj kothari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Consumer Service Head, Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

Shyama Prasad Das Mahapatra

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Mr. Pulak Kumar Singha, Ld. Member

and

Mrs. Anindita Roy, Ld. Member.

 

Complaint Case No.11/2018.

 

   Manoj Kothari, proprietor of Rajmandir, Barabazar,

                                                           P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur                                                                                                                                     …………..Complainant.

-Vs-

     1. The Consumer Service Head, Micromax House 90B Sec-18, Gurgaon-1222015

2. That manager Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., Municipality Premises No.312,

          Badu Road Digberia, Madhyamgram, Opp. Brughtware Complex, Kolkata-700128,

                                         3.Delivery Point (Flip Kart), C/o-E. Kart Logistic, Jackpaul Building, Nanur Chowk, .                       P.O.-Midnapore,  P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                           ……………..Opp.Parties.

                                                                        

                                                                                       Date of filing: 25/01/2018                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                      FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT.

 Order No.19.

 Dt.-04/12/.2018.                                            

                       Mr. Pulak Kumar Singha, Member – Complainant  files this case u/s 12 of C.P. Act.  In brief the complainant is that on 25/10/2016 complaint purchased one Micromax 102 c.m. full HD smart LED TV IMEI No.00134B96417205E from O.P. no.2 through on line process. About 2 months after taking delivery of said TV it has creating trouble from picture quality and sound track starts. Complainant informed O.P.  no.2 as well as O.P. no.1 but none of the O.Ps. gave no response. Complainant appears before this Forum for getting relief as per his prayer.

O.P. no.1 did not contest the case in spite of duly service of summon upon it.

                                                                                                                                                                Contd………………………P/2

 

( 2 )

O.P. no.2 and 3 contest the case by filing written version denying the allegations stating inter alia, that O.P. no.2 is carrying on the business of sale of goods manufactured produced by others. O.P. no.2 is not the manufacturer but an online reseller only.  O.P. no.3 has a service agreement between seller and O.P. no.3, for delivery of the goods. This O.Ps. pray for dismissal of the case against O.P. nos. 2 and 3.

                                      

                                                                                         Decision with reasons

                       

  We have carefully perused the complaint, documents, evidence and considered the argument by both sides.

                  Fact of the case, that  complainant purchased one Micromax 102 c.m. (40 inches) full HD smart LED TV from O.P. no.2 through on line process. O.P. no.3 has delivered the said TVset to the complainant. After two months from the date of purchased the said TV set was creating trouble like as picture quality, sound system etc. Complainant informed the matter at first O.P. no.2 and as per his  instruction complainant also informed the matter in respect of defects to O.P. no.1 but O.P. no.1 did not give any reply or take any  step  for solving the problem.

                  It is fact that the TV set in question was one year warranty/guaranty from the date of purchase. Said TV set was creating  problem after two months from the date of purchase and complainant also intimated the matter to O.P. no.1 and O.P. no.2 but none of O.Ps. entertained the complain or take any step to solve the problem. O.P. no.1 is the  manufacturer of goods, O.P. no.2 is the seller and O.P. no.3 is the currier for  delivery of goods. In case of manufacturing defects within warranty/guaranty period manufacturer is solely liable for that, seller is a mediator for sale of goods. In the instant case O.P. no.1 is the manufacturer of T.V.  set in question and O.P. no.2 and 3 are seller and delivery for service. In this case O.P. no.2 and 3 have no liability to repair or replace the goods, they have only play role as mediators.

                 In view of the case we think that as O.P. no.1 is the manufacturer of goods and as within warranty/guaranty period said TV set defects started O.P. no.1 is solely liable for repair or replace the goods and in this case, complainant within warranty/guaranty period intimated O.P. no.1 for taking positive step to solve the problem in respect of manufacturing defects but after getting intimation O.P. no.1 ignored the complaint,  even after received the summon from this Forum O.P. no.1 avoided and ignored the  Forum’s order by not appearing in this case.

                 We can easily say in that case O.P. no.1 is negligent and deficient in service as such complainant is entitled to get an order with cost. As O.P. no.1 is not consisting the case hence, the case is proceeded ex-parte against O.P. no.1. 

                                                                                                                                                          Contd………………………P/3

 

( 3 )

                                                                                         

                  The complaint case succeeds.

                             Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered 

                                                 that the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P. no.1 with cost and on contest against O.P. no.2 and 3 without cost.

                  O.P. no.1 is directed to return back  Rs.20,489/- (Rupees twenty thousand four hundred eighty nine) only, as per invoice price, to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) as  compensation for harassment mental pain and suffering  and also to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only as litigation cost  to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

                  Complainant is also directed in the event O.P no.1 complied the order of this Forum, the complainant will have return back the TV set in question to O.P. no.1 through seller i.e O.P. no.2.

                  Failure to comply the order, O.P. no.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/-per month from the date of order till realization to the account of  Legal Aid Fund of this Forum.

                  Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated and Corrected by me

                          Sd/- P. K. Singha                                                              Sd/- A. Roy

                                 Member                                                                        Member

                            District Forum

                        Paschim Medinipur