| Final Order / Judgement | - The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 15.06.2017 he purchased one Sony LED TV 24 inch from O.P.No.1 bearing model no. KVL-24P413D vide receipt no. 9165 and paid Rs. 15,900/-. It is alleged that few days after, the said LED TV went out of order and did not function and on repeated approach to O.P.No.2 who paid no heed and time and again he visited to O.P. No. 2 but all efforts went in vein and the O.Ps did not repair the said LED TV. Thus, with other allegations, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the alleged TV of Rs. 15,900/- or to replace defect free same model TV and to pay Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
- The O.P. No. 1 is represented through their Ld. Counsel, who appeared in this case, filed their counter in shape of written version admitting the sale of alleged LED TV to the complainant and the complaint made by the complainant on 22.08.2017, 01.09.2017 and 16.09.2017 and service provided by them but denied all other facts contending that no other service details are available in their system, as such the complainant never visited to any of their service center, hence denying their liability in regard to deficiency in service, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- The O.P. No. 2 after receiving the notice of this Fora, appeared in this case and filed his counter version admitting the sale of the alleged LED TV to the complainant has contended that he is only a retail dealer and his duty is to report the complaint immediate to the service center of the O.P. No. 2 and for any defect the O.P. No. 2 is only liable for the said defects. Thus denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
- Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his allegations, whereas the O.P. No. 1 filed documents like (1) authorization letter dated 09.05.2018 issued by O.P. No. 2 in favour of O.P.No.1, (2) copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors, (3) copy of standard warranty dated 14.03.2016 and (4) copy of letter dated 15.05.2018 issued in favour complainant by O.P. No. 1, in support of their contentions. O.P. No. 2 did not choose to file any documents. Perused the documents and materials available in the record.
- In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding sale of the alleged LED TV to the Complainant by the O.P.No.2 bearing model no. KVL-24P413D vide receipt no. 9165 and paid Rs. 15,900/- alongwith warranty certificate. Complainant filed document to that effect. It is alleged that few days after purchase the alleged LED TV, it went out of order did not function and repeated approach in this regard made to the O.P. No. 2, the said TV was not repaired. The O.P.No.2 is totally silent over the said fact and has not made contradiction in his counter version. Whereas, the O.P. No. 2 challenged the versions of complainant but admitted in their counter versions stating that they are aware of the complaint made on 22.08.2017, 01.09.2017 and 16.09.2017 by the complainant and they have replaced the Display Panel on 16.09.2017. From the above submissions of O.P. No. 2, it is clearly evident that the alleged LED TV suffered 3 times within 3 months from the date of purchase. Further the allegations of complainant about the intimation to the O.P. No. 2 regarding the defects of the alleged LED TV, are remained unchallenged and unrebuttal from the side of O.P.No.2, as the O.P. No. 2 never participated in the hearing and has not made any contradiction to that effect. In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.” Hence we have no hesitation to disbelieve the versions of complainant. Further the O.P. No. 1, though challenged the versions of the complainant stating that no service records are available with them 16.09.2017, but to make it contradict they have not filed cogent evidence, and without any cogent evidence, the plea of O.P. No. 1 cannot be accepted.
- Further the counter versions of O.P.No.2 does not reflects that the complainant never come to him to lodge further complainant after 16.09.2017. So, we think the contentions of O.P.No.2 does not contain any merit and only to save their skin, the O.Ps intended to shift their liability on the complainant by asking for further documentary evidence from him, which is not tenable under law.
- Further, during the hearing, the O.P.No.2 is absent on repeated calls, for which we lost opportunities to come to know that whether the submissions of the complainant contains any truth or not, as such the contentions of the complainant was taken into consideration regarding that the complainant made several approaches to the O.P.No.2 for repair of the alleged LED TV. The allegations of the complainant regarding the fact that after few days of purchase, the alleged TV went out of order, was well corroborated by him at the time of hearing. Though the O.P.No.1 have challenged the same but to make it contrary, they did not file any evidence to that effect, and we think, the O.P. No.2 might not have informed the O.P.No.1 regarding defects of the alleged LED TV, therefore, the allegations of complainant is well established, so also absence of the O.P.No.2 makes the averments of complainant strong and vital.
- Further, the defects were occurred during the warranty period that is to say within 2 months from the date of purchase, as such the complainant prayed for either to replace the alleged TV with defect free new one or the cost of the product from the O.Ps. Further it was the duty of O.P.No.2 on the day when he received the alleged LED TV from the complainant, immediately, he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.1 for providing better service to their genuine customer and it is seen that in the present locality, though there no authorized service center is exist, as such the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No.1 from the O.P. No. 2 must have depended on the O.P.No.2 to avail proper service.But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No. 2 indulged himself in corrupt practice of selling the products and carry out the defects as per his own choice, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
- Further lying the said alleged TV for about more than one year without any use, in our view, is of no use.
- Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the complainant, as the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which he was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses. Considering his sufferings, we feel if a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation is awarded, than it will meet the ends of justice. Hence this order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.2 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is herewith directed to refund the cost of the alleged LED TV i.e. Rs. 15,900/- to the complainant and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the cost of LED TV shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order. Further the O.P. No. 1 is at liberty to recover the amount towards compensation and cost from the O.P. No. 2 for not providing better service to their genuine customer, if they desire to do so. Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged LED TV to the O.P.No.2 at the time of complying the order by them.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of December, 2018.
Issue free copy to the parties concerned.
| |
