Orissa

Rayagada

CC/196/2015

Sri Allu Dhananjaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Doordarshan Enterprises, Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

Self

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,

 

C.C. Case No.196/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B                                     President

                    And

Smt.Ch.Nirmala Kumari Raju,LL.B                                  Member

 

       Allu Dhananjaya, S/o: Late: A.Narayana, Gandhi Nagar, 3^rd Lane, Po/Dist:Rayagada

                                                                                                           …………..Complainant

                                    Vrs.

1. The Proprietor, Doordarshan Enterprises, Near Over Bridge, At/Po:Rayagada
2. The Proprietor, Ravindra Electronics, Near Axis Bank, At/Po: Rayagada
3. The Manager, Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd., Corp: 4/1017, 3^rd Cross Street, 9^th Lane, Nehru Nagar, Kotivakkam, Chennai (T.N), 600041.
4. The Manager, Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd., Zonal Office, 2^nd Floor, Kar Towers, Plot No.1210/1744, Bomikhal, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010.

                                                                                                       ………….Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the Complainant:  In person

For the  O.P. No.1 & 2: Set Exparte

For the O.P. No.3 & 4: Sri Sahadeb Chowdhury, Advocate, Rayagada

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  is that  the complainant  has purchased a Low noise booster along with set TOP BOX and Smart card Vide Sl. No.W O90608876, H09020005034 and 41154107357R, on dt.14.05.2009. The complainant using the telugu package in the month of February-2015. But to the misfortune of the complainant the set top box did not function in the month of March and the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party No.2 for repair. The Op. No.2 kept the set top box with him for a week days and advised the complainant to replace it. Accordingly with the advice of the Op No.2 the complainant exchanged the same by paying an amount of Rs.1,150/- and installed in his resident. After installation the complainant enjoyed the package for one month. After one month the service package was interrupted. When the complainant complained regarding the same to the Op No.2 he told the complainant to recharge further otherwise the set top box will not function since it was recharged for six months. Finding no other the complainant telephoned to the Op. No.3 & 4. The Op No.3 & 4 assured the complainant to resume the service within 48 Hours but till date the service has not resume and the complainant is unable to avail the service.  Hence finding no other option the complainant prayed before this forum to direct the O.ps to refund the cost of Set Top Box with interest and award compensation of Rs.2000/-   along with cost  for litigation . Hence this complaint.

 

 

-2-

 

On being notice, the Opp.Party No.3 & 4 appeared through their Advocate Sri Sahadeb Chowdhury, and files written version denying the allegations on all its material particulars.

                         It is submitted by the O.P. No.3 & 4 that the complainant has purchased a Low noise booster and Set Top Box from O.p 3 and the O.p.4 provides warranty of one year on its products from the time of its original purchase and the liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by it and cannot be held liable for the claims falling outside the scope of warranty. From the terms of the warranty it is clear that the Opposite Party No.4 is liable to provide free of cost of smart card for six months only.  When the product is proved to be defective due to improper material, workmanship, manufacturing defect or any other problem that has arisen in the product from the manufacturers side and not when the defect has arisen due to an external cause which is beyond the control of the Opp.Party No.1 & 2, After enjoying the Set Top Box and smart card for almost six months the complainant approached the O.p. 3 for  the first time  with the issue. The complainant approached the Op No.2 and purchased the new Set Top Box under an exchange offer for Rs.1,150/-. That the new Set Top Box is only for one month free is still enjoying the Set Top Box without any issues and the complainant despite the fact has filed the present complaint in order to harass the O.ps. The instant case is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law  and the complaint is filed just to avail undue advantage  and to earn wrongful gains   and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

                        On the basis of the pleadings, the following  points  are  need to be answered  for determination  of this case.

(i)         Whether the Set Top Box is having  any   manufacturing defect ?

(ii)        Whether there is any deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties , if            so, is he liable for compensation and to what extent ?

 Point No.1

                         It is the case of the complainant that immediately after its purchase, the Set Top Box set   given problem and after  its repair  by  the authorized service centre  for the same problem exists . If the defect in the Set Top Box is not  a manufacturing one , the service centre could have able to remove it  and  at least within the warranty period there would be   no further defect  in the set but in the instant case, the defects could not be removed . Again and again the defect was detected for which the complainant was not able to use it and ultimately took the shelter of this forum. Hence, it is clear that  the defects in the Set Top Box  was not rectified  at  the  service centre  and it was returned to the complainant with the existing problem and  the O.Ps  totally failed to repair the  same. 

                        Word ‘defect’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to  any goods.

 

                        Hence, in the Issue  No.1 is answered   in favour of complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

-3-

 

Point No.2

                        As the Point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant , it is concluded  that the opposite parties are deficient in their service .Sec.2(1)(g) ‘ Deficiency in Service means  “ any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the  quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance  of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.  Since the date of purchase , the Set Top Box  given problem for which complainant   went to the service   centre  for repair    but the defects could not be rectified. The O.P Service centre refused  give any service ,which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Therefore, the O.Ps are liable to refund the amount of the Set Top Box and  also they are liable to pay compensation for mental agony   along with  cost of litigation  for filing this dispute. Accordingly, the Point No. 2 is answered  in favour of the complainant. . Hence, we  allowed the complaint   partly and  dispose of the matter with the following directions.

 

                                                            ORDER

 

                        The Opp.Parties are jointly and several responsible for the providing of defect set No. For the same the Ops are directed to refund the purchase amount  with 3% interest from the date of purchase  to the complainant and take  back the defective set from the complainant and  pay compensation of Rs.700/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.200/- towards litigation expenses. The  matter is disposed of with  the direction to the O.Ps  to make the payment to the complainant within one month, failing which complainant is at liberty to file Criminal Proceeding U/s 27 of the C.P.Act,1986 for realization  of the amount.                   

                        Pronounced in the open forum today on this 24^th day of February, 2015 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                        A copy of this order  as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parities free of charge.

 

Member                                                                                               President

Documents relief  upon;

For the complainant:

1. Invoice No.7567 dtd.14.05.2009
2. Receipt of  Exchange Old Box No.5759415.

 

For the Opp.Parties: Nil

 

                                                                                                            President