Orissa

Debagarh

CC/40/2021

Smt.Jharana Naik, aged about 37 Yrs, W/O. Ranjan Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Acharya Shop,Deogarh - Opp.Party(s)

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C. Case No- 40/2021

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Jharana Naik, aged about 37 Yrs,

W/O Ranjan Kumar Rout,

R/0 Khaparsahi, Deogarh, Post/Dist/-Deogarh.                                            …. Complainant.

     -Versus-

1.   The Proprietor,

           Acharya Shop, Deogarh, At/-Near Old Post Office,

           Post/Dist/-Deogarh.

2.  Customer Care of Intex Technologies Ltd.,

           A-61, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II,

           New Delhi-110020, India.

3. The Manufacturer,

           Intex Technologies Ltd.,

           A-61-Okhla Industrial Area, Phase - II,

             New Delhi-110020, India.                                                              ….  Opp.Parties.

 

COUNSELS

For the Complainant:-          Self

For the O.P-1                         :-          Sri N.P Guru, Advocate.

For the O.P-2 & 3                  :-          None.

                                               DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 18.12.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that,  the O.P-1 Proprietor, Acharya Store,  in this case is the authorized dealer of Intex LED TV Set, deals in  The LED/LCD/TV. Samsung, L.G. Onida, Philips, Intex LED TV set etc. That, the Complainant on dtd 4.11.2018 purchased one Intex LED TV Model No 3222. Serial No.2112202594174114528 (32 inch) from the OPNo1 for Rs 17,000/- only vide their Cash Memo No.604. The said LED TV has been warranted for three years from the date of purchase. After 1 year 10 month during September 2020 the petitioner found some defect on that LED TV set during operation of TV as it became automatically switch off, for that problem the petitioner could not see any News or entertainment serial programme. The Complainant reported the matter to the O.P.No.1 on dtd. 20.10.2020 and the OP No.1 suggest the complainant to wait one day as the Technician of the Company will visit her house to remove the defects. But after passing of 5 days, the Mechanic of O.P.No. 1 visited the premises of complainant on dtd 26.10.2020 and checked the TV Set but could not remove the defect and he suggested to contact the customer care centre or Intex Service Centre of the Company and assured come back again to do the needful. On dt.27 10.2020

the complainant made telephonic contact with the Customer Care Centre or Service Centre and requested to remove the defects in the LED TV as it is within warranty period but in vain. After 10-15 days the complainant again visited the O.P.No.1 on dtd. 12.11.2020 but there is no response made towards the removal of defects of the TV rather the OP-1 has ignored the Complainant saying that his duty is only to sell the product and he is not responsible to repair and remove the defect in the TV set if occurs of after the sell. He directed the complainant to make contact with the Customer Care/ Service Centre of the

manufacturer and warned her not to come again for the defects in the TV Set as he cannot provide any after sale services any more. Lastly the complainant again contact all the Opp. Parties on did.21.1.2021 and request to replace a new same make of LED TV set or to refund the price paid by the complainant at the time of purchase within one month but in all the Opp. Parties remained silent and no steps taken till today in this regards & the TV. Set is lying in idle condition in the house of the Complainant. Again the Cash Memo issued to the Complainant does not contain any G.S.T. TIN number hence they are unable to exchange the defective TV.  Hence the Complainant being harassed by the O.Ps filed a Consumer Complaint to get certain reliefs.

The O.P-1 though appeared through his Advocate on dtd. 28.07.2021 but did not bother to file written statements to his defence. The 2 & 3, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-2 & 3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

            From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Intex LED TV from a dealer at Deogarh on payment of consideration amount. It is the O.Ps to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said Intex LED TV after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P-1, he could not get it repaired being the Authorised service centre and unable to provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the LED TV was within warranty period. The O.P-1 has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to the Customer Care Centre & manufacturer (O.P-2 & 3). But OP-1 & 2 were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective LED TV to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P-1 & 2. Again as Per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment in “TATA Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz” given a verdict that -If there be any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.” decided by the State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7^th  September, 2017. Hence the O.P-1 & 2 have committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-                                                  

                                                                                              ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 & 2 are directed to replace the defective Intex LED TV and provide him a brand new Intex LED TV of same make and model i.e. make Intex LED TV of model Model No 3222 or refund the cost of the TV set of Rs.17,000/- with 9% interest  per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 04.06.2021 till its realisation." The O.P-1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law. 

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 18^th day of December-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                             

 

MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT.

                                                      Dictated and Corrected

                                                                   By me.

           

                                                                PRESIDENT.