: J U D G M E N T :
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant purchased a TV on 05.09.2014, 24” LED Panasonic vide model No. TH-L42E6D and Sl. No. 14BBL07351 for Rs. 57,500/- from OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 is an authorized service centre. After the expiry of warrantee period the said TV was suffering from ‘picture problem’. The matter was informed to the OPs. On 09.07.2015, the OP No. 2 came to the house of the complainant and exmined it. The OP No. 2 demanded service charge of Rs. 250/-. The complainant paid the said charge to OP No. 2. They detected board problem of said TV set. They provided an estimation for removing the defects for Rs. 5,981/-. On another day, they further came to house of the complainant and the defective board has been changed with new one. But after said change, the said TV was also suffering from same problem, i.e., picture problem. They further detected a new problem i.e., panel problem of the said set. The complainant made an order for new panel. On several occasions the complainant visited the office of OPs, for collection of TV Panel. But they did not supply the same due to non-availability of the said panel. The OPs, thereafter, made a request to choose another model. The complainant made a choice another new model being No. TH – 43LH600T. Thereafter, the OPs requested for draft. The complainant was interested to issue the said draft. But after few days, the OP informed that the offer of exchange procedure has been cancelled. So there was no necessity to issue the draft. The OP No. 3 sent a letter to the complainant through e-mail on 25.08.2016 stating for total cost of repair of Rs. 24,147.99 + Tax. The complainant, thereafter, visited the office of the OP No. 3 for depositing the said money but OP No. 3 informed to the complainant that the parts of said TV were not available. So, there was no question of depositing the said money. The cause of action arose on and from 25.08.2016 and it is continued day by day. At present the said TV has been lying idle / unused condition. There is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has knocked at the door of the Forum for getting proper relief / reliefs as prayed for in the said petition.
No written version has been filed by the OPs.
As per order No. 06, dtd. 08.12.2016 the case has been fixed for ex parte hearing. The complainant submitted some relevant documents which are marked as following Annexures.
- Annexure – 1 – Original Tax Invoice / Challan being No. 2293 dtd. 05.03.2014.
- Annexure – 2 – Original Job sheet dtd. 09.07.2015.
- Annexure – 3 – Original Job sheet wherein the panel problem has been written in technical remarks.
- Annexure – 4 – Letter addressed to Purnima Mandal dtd. 25.08.2016
Now the Forum is to consider the following points:-
- Whether the complainant is to be treated as ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1:
The Forum at first, carefully perused the complaint, compromise petition dtd. 04.11.2016 along with all relevant documents and papers. From Annexure – 1, Tax invoice / challan dtd. 05.03.2014 it is admitted that the complainant purchased one 42” LED Panasonic TV from OP No. 1, Technico Electronics on 05.03.2014 for Rs. 57,500/-. From Annexures 2 & 3, Job sheets, it is also admitted fact that the complainant visited the office of OP No. 2 (authorized service centre).
In Annexure – 4, letter dtd. 25.08.2016 addressed to the complainant wherein OP No. 3 assured the complainant to take all possible measures which would ensure resolution in shortest possible time to the complainant’s utmost satisfaction. So as per status between the both parties the complainant is to be treated as ‘consumer’ and OPs are to be treated as ‘service providers’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the point No. 1 is decided.
Point Nos. 2 & 3:
From Annexure – 1, it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a 42” LED Panasonic TV from OP No. 1. The complainant paid Rs. 57,500/- and to that effect the OP No. 1 issued Tax Invoice / Challan being No. 2293 dtd. 05.03.2014.
From Annexures 2 & 3, it is admitted fact that the TV set was suffering from main board problem as well as panel problem.
OP No. 3 also assured the complainant to take all possible measures which would ensure resolution in shortest possible time to the complainant’s utmost satisfaction which is clearly revealed from Annexure – 4. The said assurance was given to the complainant on 25.08.2016. But till date no reasonable step was taken from the end of OP No. 3.
On 04.11.2016, the OPs filed a petition praying for compromise the matter and to that effect the Forum has passed the order No. 4, dtd. 04.11.2016 wherein on the said date all OPs appeared before the Forum and they stated in open ejlash that they would want to compromise the alleged dispute. The said order was seen by Sri Sujit Kundu (OP No. 1), Sri Devi Prasad Jana (OP No. 2) and Bappa Dey (OP No. 3). But unfortunately, on the next date all OPs were absent without any step. So the case has been fixed for ex parte hearing.
From the four corners of the record it is revealed that the OPs did not take any reasonable steps regarding compromise, rather they have killed the valuable time of the Forum which is not desirable to us. From the said fact it is proved that intentionally the OPs have caused harassment and mental injury or agony to the complainant.
Moreover, the OPs have an ample opportunity to file written version, but they have failed to contest the case as well as failed to file written version. The allegations contained in the plaint was not challenged by the OPs. So, it is clear that the said plaint remains unchallenged. The silence of OPs easily proves the admission of allegations against OPs which is contained in the plaint.
From the four corners of the records and documents we have come to the conclusion that there is a gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant is entitled to get relief as against OPs. Point Nos. 2 & 3 are thus, decided.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2016/110 be and the same is allowed ex parte against all OPs with cost of Rs. 1,500/-.
The OPs are jointly and severally liable for their unfair trade practice. They are hereby directed to take back the defective TV from the premises of the complainant and to replace the same with new one at the premises of the complainant within one month from the date of order.
The OPs are also hereby directed to pay cost of Rs. 1500/- within the stipulated period of time in default, the awarded amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum till full realization.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
