Date of filing :- 17/08/2013

Date of Order :- 22/04/2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Dispute Case No. 41 of 2013.

Debanand Bhue, S/o Purna Ch. Bhue, aged 39(thirty nine) years, Occupation- Servivce (P.E.T. Teacher in Dalab U.G.High School) R/o Saraspali, Po. Jharapali, Ps./Tah- Bheden, Dist. Bargarh.

..... ..... ..... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

1. The Manager-Cum-Proprietor, M.I.R.C.Electronic Ltd Lonida House D-1, M.I.D.Mahakali Caves road, Andhari Mumbai-400093.

2. The Proprietor, Vikash Enterprises having its Office At. Thuapali, Po. Jharapali, Ps. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh.

.... .... .... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant:- Sri S.P. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri D. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri S.N.Padhi, Advocate with others Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt. 22/04/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-

Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .

Facts of the Complaint in a nutshell is Complainant files this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service by non addressing his issues being a bonafide consumer of the Opposite Parties. Complainant had purchased an Onida TV bearing Model No. CO-21-JWP-300-BMIC from Opposite Party No.2(two) who is the dealer of Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.05/09/2012. This TV shown defects in functioning after a short period of purchase and within the warranty period. Complainant approached Opposite Parties but the problem did not got required attention from the Opposite Parties, hence this complaint.

Complainant relied upon the following documents to substantiate this cause.

1. Customer warranty card.

2. Pleader's notice 16^th July-2013.

Opposite Parties duly been noticed appeared and filed their version. Opposite Party No.2(two) files version on Dt.15/01/2014 denying all the allegation against them by the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1(one) appeared and filed their version on Dt.15/01/2014 denying all charges of deficiency and negligence leveled against them.

Hearing was done on Dt.02/02/2015 in the presence of Parties through their counsel, who submitted respectively in great detail. Heard the matter. Perused the case record and documents attached.

Findings:-

The fact about purchase of TV, service engineer visiting the residence of the Complainant are admitted facts. TV set denying problems during the warranty period admitted by the Parties at hearing. The exact time period when the TV set first shown problem were not revealed by the Complainant the advocate notice was created and served in July-2013 leads to assumption that near that period TV might have shown problem which is after 9/10 months of purchase and use.

Complainant only filed the customer warranty card and not the purchase receipt of the TV though he claimed that very soon after purchase TV started showing problem, he should have correctly preserved the purchase documents to avail service etc which is not done.

Complainant resisted repair of the TV set when service engineer visited the house of the Complainant and insisted for a new TV is admitted at different times. So the fact whether manufacturing defect lies is not known with out the TV set been checked by expert here the service engineer so no support was lent is not true though it is a little bit delay in rendering service and Television set being a necessary piece of entertainment items for an entire family locally when it is in rural area, sentiments of people attached with it and can not be ignored.

Complainant was not able to establish their contention about claiming Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh)only, as damages being not able to using the TV set.

Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted that he has sold the TV to the Complainant and once after months of purchase Complainant came to him and said that the TV set is showing problem accordingly. Opposite Party No.2(two) supplied the toll free number to the Complainant to avail free service for the warranty period after that Complainant did not visited him again he after receiving the pleader's notice contacted the Complainant and wanted to help but Complainant insisted for a new TV set and even not allowed the service engineer check and repair the TV.

The Opposite Parties tried to help the Complainant solving his problem by repairing the set if required freely and restrained by the Complainant can not be held guilty if deficiency of service. But after purchase of the TV if for reasons of delay also a consumer is not able to watch TV will certainly falls then into the area of negligence and if that TV set is yet not repaired it seems that the consumer and his family is not able to watch TV for almost two years on more is not good in senses.

The factor of service engineer of Opposite Party No.1(one) visiting the Complainant only after receiving the Pleader's notice is also negligence.

Under the circumstances Opposite Parties had for negligence on their part sorting out the grievances of a bonafide consumer depriving him of enjoying his bonafide rights of entertainment.

Hence order that.

(1) Opposite Party No.1(one) will supply a New TV set of the same made and model purchased by the Complainant vide Co.21-JWP 300 HMIC through Opposite Party No.2(two).

Under the circumstances of that make and model is not available, can supply any other new TV of same price range if Complainant agrees getting proper acknowledgment from the Complainant or repay the purchase price of the TV including a 6% (six percent) interest per annum on the sum stating from the date of purchase till realization. Complainant will return the detunet TV at the time of receiving the New TV/purchase amount.

(2) Opposite Parties will pay a sum f Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only as compensation to the Complainant for the sufferings includes litigation expenses within one month of this Order failing which the awarded amount shall carry an interest of @12%(twelve percent) per annum till realization.

Complainant allowed and disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

            (Smt. Anjali Behera)

                  M e m b e r.

                                                                      I agree,                                                                                  I agree,

                                                        (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)                                                (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)

                                                                    M e m b e r.                                                                        P r e s i d e n t.