DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C.NO. 85 OF 2022

                                                                              Date of Filing: 01.12.2022

                    Date of Order: 27.03.2023

Kabita Pradhan Pradhan,

W/O Bipra Charan Behera

At-Jiringpada

PO/PS- Phulbani

District-Kandhamal             …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

The Proprietor, Arjun Senapati and Sons,

At/PO – Main Road, Phulbani

District-Phulbani                                    ……….….. Opp. Party.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                        Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant:  Self

For O.P.                     : Exparte

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Kabita Pradhan has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party for not carrying out the repair of her TV set during warranty period and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to repair her TV free of cost.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant had purchased one LG LED TV on 23.10.2022 from the Opposite Party on payment of consideration of Rs. 19, 000/-. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party had assured that the TV carries an warrantee for 3 years. But during the force of warranty period, when the TV developed defects, the Opposite Party is charging a sum of Rs. 9, 800/- for repair. Therefore, she approached the Commission for a direction to the Opposite Party to repair the TV set free of cost.
2. Notice was served on the Opposite Party. But, the Opposite Party preferred not to appear or challenge the allegation raised against him in any manner. So, he was set expartee vide order dt. 14.03.2023.
3. The complainant has filed the tax invoice in support of her case and the copy of the warranty card. It is seen from the copy of the warranty card that the date of purchase of the TV is 23.10.2020 and the warrantee period is 3 years. So, there is no doubt that the TV set is within its warrantee period. It is settled principle of law that where the Opposite Party do not raise any objection to the allegations made against him, it is deemed to have been admitted by him. In the present case, notice was duly served on the Opposite Party and he preferred not to appear or to challenge the allegations raised against him. So, it is deemed that the Opposite Party has  admitted the allegations against him.
4. Not providing free service of a defective product during warranty is an act of deficiency in service and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the petitioner for loss and harassment sustained by the complainant.
5. As a case of deficiency in service is made out against the O.P., he is liable to compensate to the petitioner for the loss suffered by her and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed expartee against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to repair the TV of the complainant free of cost and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- for deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order and in the event of delay in repair of the TV set, the Opposite Party shall pay penalty of Rs. 100/- daily till compliance of the order.

                                                         Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 27^th day of March 2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT