Orissa

Jajapur

CC/27/2019

Pranaya Kumar Pothal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Prasanta Kumar Biswal,M/S Biswal Sales. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Mohanty,Ramakanta Jena.

21 Aug 2019

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                             Dated the 21 st day of  August,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 27  of 2019.

Pranaya kumar Pothal   , S/O Bhagaban Pothal    

At. Dala by pass Road,P.O/P.S. Jajpur Road    

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

 

1. Proprietor Prasanta kumar Biswal,M/S Biswal Sales ,Jajpur Road

At.Dala Chhak,Jajpur Road, Dt.Jajpur .

2. Manager,Authorised Service center,Panasonic Pvt.Ltd, At.Kianalikul chhak

P.O/Dt.Jajpur .

3. The Manager, The owner of Panasonic corporate office ,360

Rupali street,Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar .

 

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                     

For the Complainant:                               Sri M.S.Mahunta, Sri R.K.Jena,Advocates .

For the Opp.Parties :                                Exparte. (None)

  

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:    21 . 08. 2019.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , L A D Y  M E M B E R  .

The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.

            The fact as per complaint petition in short is that  on 29^th September -2016 he had purchased a Panasonic LED  TV  from M/S Biswal Sales, Jajpur Road  O.P.n o.1 of Rs. 32,500/- After purchase of  the alleged LED TV was not functioning  properly . The electric current was not supplied to the device .Gradually the function of the T.V came to a grinding halt . The petitioner went to O.P.no.1 and intimated in the office of O.P .  The O.P. no.1 assured the petitioner to remove the defect by sending his authorized mechanic . Time and  again the petitioner approached the O.P.no.1 but all the attempts  went in vain and the O.P.no.1 advised  the petitioner to lodge the complaint before the higher authority . The petitioner lodged his complain on 30.06.2017 . Thereafter  complainant was register vide no. R 300617224175 . On 23.09.17 the petitioner again lodged complaint vide No.R230917532150  and again on 02.06.2018 . Further the petitioner lodged   complaint vide No.R020618226118 but no response.

After Several request the  O.P.no. 3 advised the petitioner to produce the Led TV  before O.P.no.2 who is the authorized service center . As per the advice of O.p.no.3 the petitioner produced the LED T.V before O.P.no.2   . The O.P.no.2 kept the T.V set from 04.07.2018 to 12.07.2018  and on the same day the petitioner came to O.P.no.2 to bring his LED T.V .The O.P.no.2 asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.4950/-  stating that after installation of the said parts, the TV will  function  smoothly without any further defect. .The O.P.no.2 expressed that it is a manufacturing defect. It can not be removed  and this problem will  arise time and again . The petitioner deposited the said amount and  O.P.no.2 issued a retail in voice no.104, dt. 12.07.2018 in favour  of the petitioner . Thereafter the petitioner took the goods from O.P.no.2 on 12.07.18 , but on 31.08.18 the same problem again  arose in  the LED TV . The petitioner lodged the complain vide No.R310818833701  and on 12.09.2018 vide complaint No. R 120918903507 but no response from the side of the O.Ps.

Now the device Led T.V is  not functioning ,electric current is not supplying to the device .It is nothing but a manufacturing defect  . Finding no other alternative the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the defective LED T.V  or refund the entire   money  with  interest as well as  to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and mental agony along with  litigation expenses  .

Though the  notice was duly served  on the O.Ps  but ,the O.Ps did not choose to contest the dispute  by  filing the objection against the petition. Accordingly after giving  several opportunity to the O.P  this fora set exparte   the O.Ps vide order dt.29.06.19.

            On the date of  hearing we heard the argument from the learned counsel of the petitioner. 

After perusal of the record and documents  it is undisputed fact that the petitioner has purchased the alleged LED TV   paying  consideration amount of Rs32,500/-   vide invoice No.RI(BFL) JKR.0906 .           

During the period of warranty the said  LED TV  became non functional on dt.15.6.17 .There after the complainant has lodged complaint to the O.Ps  vide toll  free no  vide complain  No.R300617224175 , No.R230917532150 , No.R020618226118 , No.R310818833701 and

No.R120918903507 . On dt. 12.07.18 the petitioner paid to the O.P.no.2  of Rs.4950/-  who is the authorized service center of the alleged LED TV . Again on 31.08.18 the same problem against arose in  the Led TV . Hence the petitioner approached the O.ps to repair or change the goods  but the O.Ps assured to do the same but no response .

              On the other hand the O.Ps have  not  contested  the dispute by filing  any objection or written version .  Hence we are constrained to accept the uncontroverted statement  made by the complainant   as per observation of Hon’ble State Commission or National Commission  reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96-p-15-para-4( C. C.Case No.37/2002-Odisha , 2013(11) CPR-507 –N.C respectively.

Hence this Order :

The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps expartee  .The O.Ps  are jointly and severally  liable for the above occurrence. The O.ps  are directed to replace by  provide a new LED T.V  set with  same model or same size   along with compensation of 5,000/ ( five thousand ) for mental agony and harassment within one month after receipt  of  this   order , failing which  the petitioner   can take step as per law.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st  day of  August,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.