DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                                                 CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 28 OF 2016

Subrat Ranjan Nanda,

S/O: Late Uchhab Nanda,

R/O: At-Card Bank,Jharsuguda, PO: K.M.Road,

PS/Dist-Jharsuguda, Odisha,………..……..……..………....………. Complainant.

                                           Versus 

1. Bhuwania Digital, Agrasen Chowk,

Marwaripara, PO/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha-768 201.

2. Branch Office, Delhi-31, Muicipal Market, Connaught Circus,

Opposite Parks Resturant, New Delhi…………..................... Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                   Sri D.S. Pandey, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Parties                                  Sri K.C.Mohapatra, Adv. & Associates.

Date of Order: 19.12.2016

Present       

                                                                              1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.

                                                                             2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.

Shri S.L.Behera, President: - The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had purchased one Samsung LED TV by paying Rs.14,000/- only on dtd. 09.02.2016 vide Invoice No. 6898 from O.P.No.1. There was no any disc T.V/ setup box connection at the time of installing the said TV.  Soon after installing Videocon disc connection the complainant found that the TV screen is not showing full picture due to reflecting a black pattinon the bottom of the screen of the said TV.  The complainant inform to the O.P.No.1 about the defect, the O.P.No.1 assured to replace the same by sending mechanic.  The complainant requested several times but the O.P.No.1 did not replace the said LED TV till date, hence this case.  

Being noticed through this Forum, the O.Ps. appeared before this Forum and files their written version wherein denied all the allegations made by the complainant.  The O.Ps. submitted that at the time of installing the TV by a technical person after getting disc connection he found that the LED TV was on the table but at the time of installation the technical person was hanged the TV on the wall for which the mechanic has sured that the complainant has opened the TV from the clamp of the wall and after running the said TV he conformed that a black patch appeared at the bottom of the screen of the said TV due to mishandle of the complainant.  On dtd.

19.02.2016 another technical person/ engineer further visited the house of the complainant to repair the said LED TV.  After opened the TV he found that the bottom of the screen of the TV was liquid log/ broken due to mishandle / misuse by the complainant or his family members or by the person who connected the disc TV/ Set up Box or who opened the TV from the clamp of the wall.  This type of defect is not the technical fault of the TV.  Hence the service engineer has explained that, the screen of the TV will replace in out of warranty for which the complainant will paid the cost of the screen and also given the estimate to him towards the repair of the TV.  Lastly the complainant refused to repair his TV in paid service. The above mentioned defects shall not come within the warranty condition for which the O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

Heard from both the sides and perused the case record including materials available. The complainant had purchased a Samsung LED TV by paying Rs.14,000/- only on dtd. 09.02.2016 from the O.P.No.1. The complainant had not any disc connection at the time of purchasing the TV.  The mechanic of O.Ps installed the TV in the residence of complainant, tested by inserting pen drive by playing default Vedio saved in the TV.  After taking disc connection while the mechanic visited the home of complainant, he found the display screen was showing black in the bottom of screen.  The technical person while opening the TV for repairing they found that the bottom of the screen of the TV was liquid log/ broken due to mishandle / misused which is not covered under warranty condition and the complainant has to pay the cost of LCD penal amounting Rs.8092/- only including taxes and charges. 

The complainant has filed a Xerox copy of warranty card but the letters are not visible to find out the actual warranty condition. As per the O.P the LCD penal was broken due to mishandling by the complainant and LCD penal has to be replaced which costs Rs.8092/- but the O.P has also fail to file any such warranty condition.

In view of the above mentioned circumstances both the parties are supposed to liable in this case equally, hence we allow partly the complaint petition directing both the parties i.e complainant and O.Ps. to bear the cost of repairing  and parts equally. The O.ps are directed to repair the defected TV of complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 19^th day of December, 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

                                                    I Agree.        

                                                  S.K.Ojha, Member         S.L.Behera, President                                                                                                                                 

                        Dictated and corrected by me.

                              S.L.Behera, President