Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/39/2016

SMT CHAMPA DHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MICROMAX HOUSE - Opp.Party(s)

SRI BISWAJIT SINGHA

21 Apr 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on 25-05-15 purchased one LCD TV make of Micromax, Model 20B22HD-A, Sl. No.B20D0B150604460 from Vikash Electronics, H.S. Road, Dibrugarh for an amount of Rs.9000/- with an attach warranty for a period of one year. Soon after purchase of the said LCD TV started giving various problems like unclear picture, auto tuning problem, sound problem and frequent disappearance of colour. It also gave problem at the time of starting. The complainant immediately informed the matter to the OP No.3 Vikash Electronics who informed to the concerned service centre OP No.2 and Micromax House, OP No-1. Thereafter, one Mr.Tiwari of service centre came to attend the LCD TV but could not do anything as it was a defective product and expressed his inability to resolve the problem. However, he assured that he will solve the problem and rectify the same with the consultation with the OP No-1. As such, the complainant was awaiting to get some response from OP No-2 and meanwhile, the complainant repeatedly made contact with OP No-1 and OP No-2. With the passage of time the LCD TV gave more problems and on 25-04-16 the colour of the TV completely disappeared. The fact was immediately informed to OP No.1 and 2 who assured to lodge a complaint before OP No-1. The complainant was continuously making contact with OP No.1 and 2 but did not get any response from them. The complainant on 07-05-16 called to the customer care No.18605008899 of OP No.1 and accordingly OP No.1 assured the complainant to rectify the TV within 24-48 hrs, after being registered a complaint No.AS070516830 dated 07-05-16. But none of them attended in response to the above complaint. Finally, on 09-05-16 OP No.3 has taken back the said LCD TV with an assurance to rectify and repair the said TV, but till date the said TV has not yet been repaired nor delivered to the complainant. As such, TV is lying with the custody of OP No.1 since 09-05-16. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice dated 10-05-16 to all the OPs No.1,2,3 but they did not gave any reply to the notice though the notice was duly served upon them. The OP No.1 Micromax House in collaboration with the dealer OP No.3 sold a defective TV to the complainant who is totally ignorant about the TV. As such, the complainant faced acute mental hardship for purchasing such a defective TV for which he suffered both physical and mental agony. The above act of the OP are out and out deficiency in service by selling a defective TV and thereby the OPs have committed deficiency in service for which the complainant filed the present case with prayer to direct the OP to replace a new TV of the same brand or to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- along with interest @9% per annum from 25-05-15, also prayed to direct the OP to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony and the cost of the litigation.

 

     After registering the case, notices were issued to  the OPs which were duly received but none of the OP attended this Forum and has also not filed any written statement contesting the claim of the complainant. So, the case against OPs have been proceeded exparte.

 

   Complainant has led his evidence by swearing an affidavit and  has exhibited as many as 8 (eight) documents to prove his case. Upon going through the evidence of the complainant and hearing argument following decision is delivered.

 

 

      

          DISCUSSION,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

  

           

Upon going through the evidence, documents and the argument advanced by the complainant it is found that on 25-05-15 the complainant purchased one LCD TV  make of Micromax, Model 20B22HD-A, Sl. No.B20D0B150604460 from Vikash Electronics, H.S. Road, Dibrugarh for an amount of Rs.9000/- with an attach warranty. Ext-1 is the purchase receipt and Ext-2 is the warranty card, which was for a period of one year. From the evidence of the complainant it appears that after few days of purchase the said TV the complainant faced problem like unclear picture, auto tuning problem, sound problem and frequent disappearance of colour along with starting problem which was within the warranty period. The complainant immediately  made correspondences with OP No.3 who informed to OP No.2 service centre, 2 but OP No.2, the service centre of OP No.1 failed to rectify the defect. The LCD TV, subsequently, on 25-04-16 completely became inactive which was informed by the complainant to OP No.1 and 2. He also informed the matter to OP No.1 through customer care No.18605008899 on 07-05-16 to which the OP assured him that they would look into the matter and rectify the same within 24-48 hrs. But till date the LCD TV has not been rectified. Finally, on 09-05-16 OP No.1 Vikash Electronics has taken back the TV with an assurance to get the same rectified through local service centre within a short period, but they did not repair the said TV for which  TV is still lying under the custody of OP No.3 after 09-05-16.

 

From the above part of evidence of the complainant it appears that the defect of the TV started within warranty period and finally it stopped working on 25-04-16 whereas, OPs neither attended the TV nor rectified the defect of the TV. All the OPs assured to rectify the defect but was not rectified. One Mr.Tiwari of OP No.2 i.e. service centre where the TV was delivered for rectification of defect, had expressly declared that it was a defective piece and was beyond his capacity to repair the same. However, he assured to repair the TV after being consulted with the OPs No.1 and 3. Complainant made several correspondence with the OPs, but ultimately, the OPs failed to repair the said TV and to deliver it to the complainant, which amount to a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as because, the complainant could not enjoy the fruit of the TV for the purpose of which he purchased the same.

 

On meticulous scrutiny of the material on record and the evidence, it appears that the complainant has been able to prove the prima facie case, that the OPs have committed serious negligence, deficiency in service and illegal trade practice by not rectifying the defect of the TV and by selling a defective TV. Though it appears that there is no certificate as to the manufacturing defect however, from the statement of Mr. Tiwari who attended the TV clearly expressed that the TV was manufacturing defect for which repairing of it was beyond his capacity. Further, it appears that the said TV is still with the OP No.2, but he failed to repair the same and to deliver to the complainant. Had it been repairable the OPs must have repaired the same and delivered to the complainant but as the TV was manufacturing defect the repairing is impossible for which it is lying with OP No-2.

 

In view of the conclusion arrived above, this Forum comes to a conclusion that the exparte evidence led by the complainant have been able to disclose prima facie material of deficiency in service and illegal trade practice committed by the OPs by selling a defective TV. All the OPs are jointly and equally liable for selling a defective TV. As such, this Forum doth order directing OPs to replace the said TV of same brand and quality or to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- along with interest @9% per annum thereon from 25-05-15 i.e. from the date of purchase. Further, OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of the litigation. OPs are directed to pay the above amount through this Forum within one month from the date of this judgment.

 

Copy of the judgment be sent to OPs for compliance.