DATE OF FILING: 06.06.2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.05.2018.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy, Member:
The complainant Ranjan Kumar Panda Jena has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant he has purchased a LG LED television, Model: 32LH512H, Serial No. 605PLDx121698 from O.P.No.1 on 14.07.2016 by paying the full and final consideration of amount of Rs.22,200/-vide Invoice/Bill No. 178 dated 14.07.2016. The O.P.No.3 is the manufacturer of the said television and the O.P.No.2 is the authorized dealer/Distributor centre of the O.P.No.3 for South Odisha. Right from the purchase of the said LED television, it is found to be defective and not displaying properly in a smooth view condition i.e. some scratch lines are found while watching the said TV and the other features/performances like sound system and start-up view etc. are very poor and also with multifarious defects in the said LED television set. The complainant immediately intimated the facts to the O.P.No.1 who lingered over the matter with some pretext or other. The complainant has not watched the television for which he purchased the same. The complainant complained the facts to the O.P.No.2, who attended the same, but not rectified the defect nor replaced. The complainant visited the show room of the O.P.No.2 four times, but every time he has to return home hopelessly. It is pertinent to mention here that the said defective television set remained almost all the time with the O.P.No.1 and 2 to rectify the defects, but it is not yet rectified. So it is presumed that it must be a manufacturing defect which can not be rectified by the service centre. Initially the O.P.No.1 assured that he will rectify the defect or replace a new television but later he misbehaved and did not keep his words. After purchasing the said LED television set, the complainant has to run to the office of the O.P.No.1 & 2 and also the authorized service centre time and again by wasting his valuable time and harassed due to non-rectification of the defects. Hence, it is ascertained that the said television has some congenital manufacturing defects right from its manufacture. The said TV found to be defective in the very beginning of its use within one week of its purchase, which is within the guarantee period as prescribed by the manufacturer of O.P.No.3. The complainant approached the O.P.No.1 several times to change a defect free LED television or to replace a new defect-free TV, but the O.P.No.1 is not giving any importance to the request/approached of the complainant, for which the complainant is sufficiently harassed. It is also very unfortunate that the O.P.No.1 instead of behaving in a polite manner, he is misbehaving to the complainant in a very indecent manner, which is punishable under law. The said TV was found to be defective due to occurrence of some scratches/lines on its display (while watching not outside the screen) and handed over to the O.P.No.1, service centre and also to the O.P.No.2 within the warranty period several times. The TV is still within the Guarantee/Warrantee period and the O.Ps are avoiding to render any help, which is a gross negligence committed on the part of the O.Ps. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the television by a defect-free or alternatively refund the cost of the handset of Rs.22,200/-, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and cost of Rs.,5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Despite notice issued by this Forum, the O.P.No.1 and 2 failed to appear on the date fixed as such they set exparte on dated 20.11.2017.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed written version through his advocate on dated 20.11.2017. It is stated that the complaint allegations are all false and denied. The averments of the complaint which are specifically not admitted herein below shall be deemed to have been disputed and denied by this O.P. The averments made in Para 1,2,3 and 4 of complaint with regard to address of parties, cause of action, jurisdiction etc. being submission based on points of law, complainant may be put to establish same. This is not a case of denial of rendering service on receipt of complaint under warranty terms and conditions. Hence, cause of action in this case not yet arisen. Apart from that, it is submitted that while examining jurisdiction under section 11 of the Act, along with territorial jurisdiction all tower provisions are mandatorily required to be taken into consideration together. Present complaint is filed alleging manufacturing defect in LG LED television, after using 11 months. The allegation is not supported with single scrap of materials on record and/or report of experts. Technician on inspection opined that due to external force panel of the LED television is broken, and same is not covered under free services in terms of clause 9 warranty conditions, agreed among parties. In such circumstances, the Forum may arrive at a conclusion that alleged television is not having any manufacturing defect or may sent the television to laboratory for its testing and seeking report of experts under Section 13 and 14 of the Act. It is submitted, alleged television admittedly purchased after proper demonstration at dealer end there after installed by authorized service center and being fully satisfied with its performance, complainant put his signature on job card. Thereafter complainant never ventilated his grievance till 12.05.2017. Hence, the allegation of detection of defect since the day of purchase is disputed and denied and even the allegation is not believable. Allegation with regard to O.P. unable to repair the television is disputed and denied. This consumer complaint is not maintainable on apprehension of manufacturing defect in goods. With regard to apprehension of congenital manufacturing defect since one week of purchase, mental agony due to running several times to O.P. for service, misbehave by O.P.No.2 is disputed and denied. These allegations are averments without support of any materials on record. The allegation of misbehave, prayer for punishment for misbehaves, etc. are not maintainable under the consumer protection Act. Approaching O.P.No.1 for replacement of the TV is disputed and denied and same is beyond scope of warranty terms and conditions. In such circumstances, though the damages occurred during the warranty in force, service on chargeable basis is offered by authorized service centre, which is denied by the complaint. With regard to entitlement of complaint to get full refund of price with interest in terms of warranty, in case failure detected in television within first year warranty is disputed and denied and complainant may be put to establish the averments by producing documentary evidence. This is a case of damage caused to the product due to misuse and not a case of manufacturing defect or defect in goods. In the present case complaint is a well educated person who put his signature English language and same is evident from job card dated 14.07.2016. It is further evident being fully satisfied with the performance of the product and after sales service he put his signature. The copy of invoice submitted by complainant discloses that the seller and he himself agreed with the terms and conditions mentioned in the face of the invoice. It is specifically agreed in the invoice that “Goods once sold can not be returned, No guarantee on physical damages, liquid problem, along with other details”. Since the complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case against the answering O.P. the instant complaint of the complainant be kindly dismissed against the O.Ps. It is strenuously denied that there is any case of manufacturing defect in goods, deficiency in service is established against the answering O.P. It is submitted that the averments/prayers are bald, frivolous, misconceived and made without any merit and the instant complaint merits dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No.3 are present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and citation placed on the case record. It reveals that the complainant has failed to file any documentary evidence such as job sheet etc. that his TV was repaired by the O.Ps repeatedly. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not mentioned a single date regarding defect of his Television and the cause of action for filing this case in his complaint petition.
6. Further it reveals from the version of the O.P.No.3 that after receiving the complaint by the authorized service centre from the complainant on 12.05.2017, one technician deputed to provide service on 13.05.2017 but it is detected that due to mishandling the panel of the LED Television is broken, which is not covered under the warranty services. But O.P.No.3 fails to file any documentary evidence that the panel of the complainant’s LED television is broken. Further, it reveals that O.P.No.3 has taken a plea that “goods once sold cannot be returned” has been mentioned in the face of the invoice alongwith “No guarantee on physical damages, liquid problem etc.” But it is pertinent to mention here that as per Sl. No.6 of the warranty terms and condition it has been clearly reflected that the panel/module of LED television shall be repaired or replaced during the extended warranty period also as per the warranty policy of the Company. The O.Ps failed to prove that the complainant’s LED television panel has been broken physically and “Goods sold cannot be returned” plea of the O.Ps amounts to unfair trade practice. On foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent as rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. As a result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against O.P.No.3 and on exparte against O.P.No.1 & 2. All the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to repair the complainant’s LED television in free of cost as per the complainant’s satisfaction alongwith fresh warranty within one month from receipt of this order. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own cost. This case is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
