F I N A L O R D E R / J U D G E M E N T
Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh, President ─ This consumer complaint under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs named above alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows: -
That complainant on 31-05-2015 purchased one television set (Reconnect 42 Fhd 3D Smart Led TV 4207) on higher purchase basis with 2(two) years warranty from the authorized branch office of OP Nos. 1 & 2, RRL CDIT, Avani Riverside Mall, 32 Jagat Banerjee Ghat Road, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah – 711 102 and subsequently the warranty period was extended for another one year on 28/06/2017 for which complainant has paid another amount of Rs.7,039/- only and accordingly one authenticated bill was issued being No. Y467003958 dated 28/06/2017 and thus, total warranty period stands three years up to June, 2018 on the aforesaid purchased item.
Complainant also stated that during the said warranty period there was some serious mechanical problems arose for which complainant suffered a lot and in such compelling circumstances complainant lodged several complaints to the local authorities of the OPs and accordingly, some dockets were lodged by the OPs in their respective offices against such complaints but on all occasions neither any technician nor any mechanic has been sent from the local office of the OPs for rectifying the mechanical defects and complainant further through her husband, Asim Bose called through his mobile to the respective persons of the local office of the OPs but there was no result and till today said defect was not removed or rectified by the local office of the company of the OPs and finally complainant sent legal notice through her Advocate on 04/12/2018 to the authorities including the local office of the OPs and again sent notice to OP No. 3 on 10/12/2018 within the warranty period for taking appropriate steps within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of such notice by company of the OPs but more or less one and half months passed away, none of the OPs came for redressing the grievances of the complainant and finally complainant having no other alternatives constrained to lodge this complaint before this Commission praying for direction upon OPs to deliver a Brand New or Fresh Television Set (Reconnect 42 Fhd 3D Smart Led TV 4207) by replacing the allotted defective Television Set (Reconnect 42 Fhd 3D Smart Led TV 4207) or similar Television Set with similar configuration of any other renowned company to the complainant and complainant has also prayed for direction upon OPs to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- only as compensation towards mental agony & harassment, an amount of Rs.56,990/- only towards damages and financial loss, an amount of Rs.30,000/- only for deficiency in service and also an amount of Rs.30,000/- only towards litigation cost.
OPs have filed W/V denying all material allegations and contented inter alia that: -
The instant case is not only maintainable according to law but also suppression of true facts and the instant case is harassing, motivated, concocted, false, and fabricated and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with cock and bull story for wrongful gain.
OPs have stated that complainant purchased one television set (Reconnect 42 Fhd 3D Smart Led TV 4207) on higher purchase basis and warranty period of said television set was up to June, 2018 by extension and after starting mal-functioning of said television set complainant reported the matter to the OPs and OPs subsequently lodged a complainant to their ResQ team, and accordingly ResQ engineer visited the customer’s house and after analyzing the problem ResQ team decided that some parts were needed to be replaced but unfortunately those parts were not available with ResQ team and OPs followed it up regularly with a hope for availability of those parts and the same has been informed to the complainant with an assurance to resolve the problem but complainant without waiting for the same filed the instant case against the OPs and present contesting OPs also stated that “OPs is only one of the stores or selling outlet and it has no liability for any manufacturing defects” and as per said terms and conditions of the warranty complainant had the warranty with the manufacturer and not with the OPs and as such, for any manufacturing defects the manufacturing company is liable, not the present OPs, (distributer or retailer) and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the present OPs and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is the consumer to the OP or not?
- Whether this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP or there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
On close scrutiny from the materials on record, it reveals that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(i)(d)(i)(ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to the OPs.
Complainant appears to be the resident of district Howrah whereas OPs having their offices Howrah, Kolkata and Mumbai. Considering the nature of the case and prayers of the complainant it straightway gives clear signal that pecuniary value of the case is within Rs.20,00,000/- i.e. within the limit of this Commission (formerly Forum). So, this Commission (formerly Forum) has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
To prove the case complainant has filed evidence on affidavit and in her affidavit she has more or less narrated and/or highlighted the version as she depicted in her petition of complaint.
Besides that complainant already filed photocopies of documents relating to the television set in question and going through the same this Commission (formerly Forum) finds that those photocopies of documents are supporting the complainant’s case sufficiently.
It may be noted that complainant filed an application praying for direction upon the OPs to discover by interrogatories about the particulars to be submitted in respect of manufacturer and the name of responsible persons etc. The said application has been registered as M. A. Case being No. MC/109/2019 and this Commission (formerly Forum) vide its order dated 02/03/2022 relating to said M. A. Case directed upon OP No. 3 to file reply against the interrogatories filed by the complainant. Be it mentioned that OP No. 3 did not file any sort of reply in spite of direction of this Commission (formerly Forum). That apart none of the OPs have filed evidence on affidavit. Resultantly, the evidentiary value of the contents of W/V of the OPs is becoming Nil. Alternatively we can say that the version of W/V of the OPs has not been supported by an affidavit and as such, such version of OPs as incorporated in W/V is not tenable in law and this Commission (formerly Forum) cannot attach any importance of such version of W/V of the OPs.
Considering the pros and cons of the materials on records and also taking in view the attending facts and circumstances of the case this Commission (formerly Forum) is of the opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving her case and thus, she is entitled to have order as sought for.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That Complaint Case No. 48 of 2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3 with costs.
OPs are hereby directed to deliver a Brand New and/or fresh Television Set (Reconnect 42 Fhd 3D Smart Led Tv 4207) (replacing the allotted defective Television Set (Reconnect 42 Fhd 3D Smart Led Tv 4207) and/or similar television set with similar configuration of any other renowned company within 45(forty five) days from the date of this order.
OPs are hereby also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service within 45(forty five days from the date of this order.
OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant towards litigation cost.
Let free copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by me
(Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh)
President, DCDRC, Howrah
