PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 75/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Bijaya Sagar,

S/O- Late Madhab Ch. Sagar,

R/O- LIC Colony, C/O-Saint Merry School,

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                            ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd,

Registered Office-6^th Floor DLF Center,

Sansad Marg-New Delhi-110001,

2. M/S Paradise Stores, Budharaja,

GM College Road, Sambalpur.                                      …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. R.L. Agrawal, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :-       Sri. S.K.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :-       Ex-parte

Date of Filing:27.09.2022,     Date of Hearing :02.05.2023,     Date of Judgement :05.06.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased a Samsung LED TV of the OP No. 1 company from the shop of the OP No. 2 dtd. 01.11.2020 with a warranty period of two years. All of a sudden on dtd. 26.08.2022 the LED TV was not clearly visible and a line was coming in display and for which the Complainant immediately complaint the same to the OP NO. 2 who had sold the TV to the Complainant. The OP No. 2 reported the matter to the OP No. 1 and lodged a complaint with the OP No. 1 on 26.08.2022 and send a number to contact their service center vide No. 4354456077. The Complainant was contacted on the said number and raised his Complainant with the service agency and accordingly one Lucky Swain visited to the Complainant house on 31.08.2022 to verify the details and after some time of examining the TV , he stated that there is no external damages to the TV and the TV Pannel has got some mechanical issues and the same will be replaced by the OP No. 1 as the product is under Warranty. During the examination by Mr. Swain he received a call from some of his colleague who instructed him to put pressure on the TV Panel few times, as a result of which some new Black Sports arose on the TV Panel which was seen by the Complainant and after the Black Spots arose, the technician took a video of the same and send to his colleagues and immediately the technician changed his words stating it’s not a manufacturing defects its physical damage which has been done by the Complainant and they cannot replace/repair the Panel under warranty even if the Complainant requested him to take away the TV to the service center for through examination but as per the instruction he did not listen and left the house of the Complainant. After two days the Complainant received a massage from the OP No. 1 stating his complaint has been cancelled as the same is not covered under warranty. On 1^st Spt, 2022 someone from the local service center of the OP No. 1 called the Complainant to pay Rs. 32,158/- for repairing and replace of LED Panel which was refused by the Complainant and the Complainant approached the OP NO. 1 where his technician verified that the damage was not external then the OP NO. 1 asked the Complainant to approach the owner of the service center, but the owner did not properly replied for 3-4 days and later he asked the Complainant to pay Rs. 37,000/- for replacement of the LED Panel. The refusal to repair the TV within the Warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice by the OPs. After that the Complainant had contacted the concerned OPs but they did not co-operate with the Complainant and intentionally neglected the Complainant. It was clear that the Complainant harassed and cheated by the OPs.

2. The Written notes of the OP No. 1 is that on receipt of the complaint, the technical person visited to render service. In inspection, it is detected that the Panel of the TV is physically damaged, due to misuse/external forces. In such circumstances, the warranty is void and the Complainant was apprised that he is not entitled to free services under clause 7 and 8 of the warranty terms and conditions. An estimate was provided offering services, but the Complainant refused to avail such services. In such circumstances, this is not a case of deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice.

ISSUES

1. Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant had purchased a Samsung LED TV of the OP No. 1 company from the shop of the OP No. 2 dtd. 01.11.2020 with a warranty period of two years. So the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

The Complainant himself mentioned in his complain petition that the TV was working properly but all of a sudden on dtd. 26.08.2022 the LED TV was not clearly visible and a line was coming in display. So from the above fact it can be concluded that there was no manufacturing defect. Further the ‘Panel’ might be physically damaged, due to misuse/external forces. As per the term and condition of the warranty card clause 7 and 8 of the warranty terms and conditions, it will not be covered under warranty. Thus, it is clear that the Complainant himself is at fault for traversing beyond the warranty terms and conditions. Hence the O.Ps are no deficient in service.

          Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From the facts and evidences submitted by the parties, the Complainant is not entitled for getting reliefs what he claims in his complaint petition from the OPs.

  ORDER

           The case is dismissed on merit against the O.Ps.

          Order pronounced in the open Court today on 5^th day of June, 2023.

          Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.