Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.09.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the said T.V. i.e. Rs. 10,400/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Four hundred only ).
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,000/- ( Rs. Forty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased an Onida Color T.V. 21’ on 26.10.2008 from retail show room shop of opposite party no. 2 after paying Rs. 10,400/- bearing model no. 1200W T.V., Chasis no. 124473( vide annexure – 1 ).
After purchasing the aforesaid T.V. when the complainant switched it on he found that it was full of defects as there was no good quality of picture. Besides the aforesaid defect there were other defects in the T.V. for which he had informed opposite party no. 2 who advised him to approach service center. As per advice of the opposite party no. 2 he approached service center where his picture tube was changed but despite that when the complainant switched on the T.V. in his house, it was not properly functioning. Thereafter again he informed opposite party no. 2 and requested him to either refund the money or change the T.V. On 27.07.2009 the complainant handed over the T.V. to opposite party no. 2 for and the opposite party no. 2 issued receipt and given assurance to redress the grievance of the complainant.
The complainant has further asserted that opposite party no. 2 neither exchanged the T.V. nor returned the price despite his several request and legal notice. The grievance of the complainant has not been redressed.
From the record it appears that when the registered notice did not returned unserved then vide order dated 20.06.2011 the valid tamila was declared and vide order dated 11.04.2012 a direction was given to hear the case exparte.
It is needless to say that as there is no counter version of the facts asserted by the complainant on affidavit hence we have no option but to accept the facts asserted by the complainant which has been stated by him on oath.
It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the aforesaid T.V. which was found defective and thereafter as per advice of opposite party no. 2 the same was given to service center where the picture tube of the aforesaid T.V. was changed. The complainant has asserted that when the defect of the T.V. could not be removed then he deposited the same with opposite party no. 2 on 27.07.2009 who had assured him either to exchange the T.V. or refund the price. The T.V. is still lying in the shop till filing of this case.
Annexure – 3 of complaint shows that the Onida T.V. was received by opposite party no. 2 on 27.07.2009. Annexure – 1 shows that total price of the T.V. at the time of purchase of the same on 26.10.2008 was Rs. 10,400/-.
The legal notice has been annexed as annexure – 5.
The aforesaid facts clearly prove gross deficiency on behalf of opposite parties hence we find and hold that all the opposite parties have committed gross deficiency by not redressing the grievance of the complainant.
For the discussion made above we direct the opposite parties to return the price of the aforesaid T.V. i.e. Rs. 10,400/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Four Hundred only ) vide annexure – 1 to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 10% on the said amount i.e. Rs. 10,400/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Four Hundred only ) till its final payment.
It is needless to say that after payment of the price of the T.V. contained in annexure – 1 the T.V. will be property of opposite parties because the T.V. is with opposite party no. 2.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly, this complaint petition stands allowed to extent referred above.
Member President
