Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.11.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to return the TV with same model and same price.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has only filed his case through Performa for filing the complaint. In Para – 4 of which the following facts have been asserted, “ During warranty period for time power unit was defective, after warranty power unit of TV has gone off. One time repairing your service center & bill amount Rs. 5,550/- & one again power unit of TV has gone off. It is lying useless approximately. It has for manufacturing defect.”
From annexure – 1 it appears that the complainant has purchased a TV being ONIDA 32 XARIA from Shop Opera situated at S.P. Verma Road, Patna after paying price of Rs. 30,000/-.
In appears from annexure – 3 that power unit of TV has gone out of order which was replaced by opposite party after receiving Rs. 5,550/- vide annexure – 2 and thereafter again there was defect in the TV which was not repaired by opposite party.
On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed stating therein that the complaint be dismissed for non – joinder of party.
In Para – 4 of written statement, the opposite party has asserted as follows, “that the opposite party submits that the amount was collected on provision of service after warranty period had expired. However the complainant had amongst other interalia alleged in his letter dated 06.05.2010 that there is manufacturing defect in the product. The company with bonafied intention not to litigate immediately replaced the part to the satisfaction of the complainant within 5 days and collected the service and spare part replacement cost since the warranty on the product was expired. On this ground alone this complaint may dismissed with cost.”
It has been further stated that in Aug 2010 the opposite party had received complaint that the power supply of TV has gone off but despite opposite party representative request for making inspection of the TV the complainant did not allowed the representative to make inspection of T.V. In Para – 9 of written statement the opposite party has stated as follows, “the complainant has enjoyed the product without any need for repair during the warranty period and thereafter upto 06.05.2010 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for what was replaced was only an electronic part and hence the product cannot be tremed as defective.”
-
The fact asserted by the respective parties have been narrated in above paragraphs.
It goes without saying that the Shop from where the TV was purchased had not been made party in this case.
From perusal of written statement it appears that during warranty period the complainant has enjoyed the product without any need for repair.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been filed repeating the same fact again and again.
From perusal of Para – 7 of rejoinder it appears that during warranty period the aforesaid TV was repaired 3-5 times for which the company has taken money from the complainant. From perusal of Para – 9 of the written statement it transpires that warranty period was upto 06.05.2010 while the company has charged Rs. 5,550/- vide annexure – 2 on 11.05.2010 i.e. after warranty period. The complainant has not mentioned the date upto which the warranty extends hence we have no option but to accept the date mentioned by the opposite party in Para – 9 of written statement.
It is needless to say that after warranty period the company is not required either to replace or repair any part of the TV or any machine.
For the discussion made above we find no merit and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
