Orissa

Cuttak

CC/30/2016

Sri Gouranga Ch Swain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, M/s Sanjay Electronics Nx - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik

29 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.30/2016

 

Sri Gouranga Ch. Swain,

At/.PO:Katikata,Via:Asureswar,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                   … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.       The Proprietor,

                            M/s. Sanjaya Electronics Nx

      Authorized Dealer of L.G.,

      Machhuati,Salipur,Cuttack.

 

2.        M/s. Tez Services,

Authorized Service Centre of L.G.,

At Plot No.1173, Mahanadi Vihar,

                   Cuttack

 

3.           The Branch Manager,

L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar Branch Office,

At/PO:Bapuji Nagar,Plot No.2,

Bhubaneswar-751001, Dist:Khurda.

 

4.           Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd. Office: A Wing (3^rd Floor),

D-3,District Center,Saket,

New Delhi.                                                                         … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    17.03.2016

Date of Order:  29.05.2017.

 

For the complainant        :       Sri R.K.Pattnaik, Advocate & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1 & 2            :       None.

For O.Ps 3 & 4 :                         Sri S.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. Shortly the case is that the complainant purchased a “LG PLASMA TV” from O.P No.1 on 28.04.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.50,150/- vide invoice No.271 and Model of the T.V was LG PDPTV 50 PB 560B.(Annexure-1).  The warranty on the said T.V was for one year from the date of purchase (Annexure-2).  The T.V started giving problem on 19.05.2015 and complaint was lodged with O.Ps vide complaint No.RNA 150519048703.  A technical person was deputed by O.P No.2 on 20.05.2015 who found that the remote of the T.V. needs replacement and the same was replaced.  The T.V stopped suddenly on 26.06.2015 and again the complaint was lodged by the complainant vide No.RMA 1506260178128.  It was observed by the technical person deputed by O.P No.2 that the panel board was completely damaged.  Even if the said panel board was taken away by the technical person of O.P No.2  on 28.06.2015with assurance to replace the same immediately it was replaced after one month and seven days.  As such the complainant failed to enjoy the T.V for the said period.  Again the T.V set was out of order on 14.02.2016 for which the complaint was lodged vide No.RNA-1602-14098588.  The complainant was attended by O.P on 16.02.2016 and was intimated by the technical man that there is problem in power supply(Annexure-3).  The complainant intimated the technical person that the power supply to his house is O.K and  being dissatisfied with the repair work the complainant wrote a letter to the O.P on 16.02.2016 requesting them to replace the T.V immediately since the TV set was defective one or refund the cost of the T.V/.(Annexure-4).  But in vain.  Again the complainant issued a notice to O.P No.3  on 03.03.2016to replace the said T.V within 7 days.(Annexure-5) but it yielded no result.  Finding no other way the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund a sum of Rs.50,150/- towards cost of the T.V, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. O.P No.1 & 2 did not attend the hearing nor submitted any written version hence set exparte on 15.05.2017.
3. Vide their written version dt.16.07.2016 O.P No.3 & 4 have stated that the T.V was purchased on 28.04.2015 and the warranty expired on 28.04.2016.  There is no scope for claim by the complainant after such warranty period.  They have admitted that the 1^st complaint was lodged on 20.05.2015 and was attended by the O.P to the satisfaction of the complainant. On 04.07.2015 the panel was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  On 12.02.2016 again a complaint was lodged and on inspection it was detected that the power supply unit requires replacement.  On 16.02.2016 the technician visited the residence of the complainant with required spares for providing service but the complainant refused to accept any service and wanted to have a new set apprehending manufacturing defect and also refused to sign on the job card.  The T.V had no manufacturing defect.  They had also opted to direct the complainant to send the said T.V for required test in the laboratory in order to prove that the T.V set had some manufacturing defect.
4. We have gone through the case carefully, perused the documents as submitted by the complainant as well by O.P No.3 & 4, heard the advocates from both the sides at length and observed that the complainant purchased a T.V for Rs.50,150/- on 28.04.2015.  Subsequently the T.V set developed some problems which was repaired by O.P No.2 on several occasions.  It was not repaired on 16.02.2016.  The technical person of O.P No.2 intimated that there was problem in power supply which was not acceptable to the complainant since the T.V set had developed problems earlier.  The complainant wanted to replace the said T.V with a new one as he (the complainant) alleged that the earlier TV supplied to him was defective.  But the manufacturing defect of the said T.V was not established during the enquiry, because in our view, the complainant on whom the burden to prove the manufacturing defect heavily rested has not been able to discharge the same satisfactorily.  But it was a fact that the T.V set was out of order for several times and the last complaint was lodged on 12.02.2016 which was well within warranty period of the T.V.

  The T.V set was purchased for a price of Rs.50,150/- and  the set was supposed to give trouble free service for several years and not  during the warranty period only.

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, we allow the case against the O.Ps.

                                                                                ORDER

                The O.Ps (3 & 4) will ensure the repair of the said T.V set free of cost and will also ensure that the said repaired T.V set is functioning properly for a further period of one year from the date of delivery of the T.V after necessary repair to the complainant.  The O.Ps (3 & 4) will also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5000/-towards litigation cost.  The above amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- + Rs/5000/- total Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Forum as per C.P.Act,1986.

                Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 29^th day of May,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

                                                                                                                                       (   Sri D.C.Barik  )

                                                                                                                                               President.

                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                      (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                              Member(W).