Orissa

Jajapur

CC/83/2017

Smt.Banita Samal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Biswal Sales,Jajpur Town - Opp.Party(s)

Ld.Adv

28 May 2018

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 28th day of May,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.83 of 2017

Smt. Banita Samal  W/O Bibekananda Samal

At. Banapur , P.O. Baidyarajpur

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

                   (Versus)

1. Biswal Sales ,Jajpur Town  ,  At/P.O/Dist. Jajpur. 

2.Samsung India Electronics PVT.Ltd, A-25,Ground floor front,Tower,Mohan

Co-operative Industrial Estate,new Delhi .

3.Jagannath Care Center,Mohavir Chhak, Bhimkarpur,Jajpur  Town .            ………..Opp.Parties.                 

                                                                                                                  

For the Complainant:                                  Self.

 

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                         None.

 

For the Opp.Parties ; No.2                       Sri S.K.Mohanty, S.K.Mohanty,J.Mohanty,P.Samartha

                                                                      Rutuparna Dash, P.K.Daspattnaik,Advoccates.

For the Opp.Parties No.3                          Sri S.K.Mishra,Proprietor                                                                                              

                                                                                                      Date of order:   28. 05.2018.

SHRI  JIBAN  BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT   .

            The petitioner has filed the  present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            The fact as stated in the complaint petition is that she has purchased one Samsung LED 32J4003ARL from O.P.no.1 on  07.8.16 vide invoice no. RI.1358 dt.07.08.16 paying the  consideration amount of Rs.24,500/- .During the time of sale of  LED T.V,  the O.P.no. 1 has issued a warranty certificate  having 2 years of warranty   in favour of the petitioner. On 16.10.17  several  defects  aroses which is after one year of completion of warranty  and was repaired  by Samsung service  authorized center ( O.P. no.3 ) .  As per  terms and condition  only service charges was  paid by the petitioner .  Further after  one month of repair the said product was again stopped  working  . The petitioner  lodged complain before the O.Ps . But the O.P.no. no.3  intimated  to the petitioner that the said product was not coming under 2 years of warranty . The product shall be repaired only on  paid service .  . The petitioner  though informed  the matter to  O.P.no.1  but the O.P.no.1 replied that  the said product was not  coming under the warranty of two  years . Accordingly the petitioner knocked the door  of this fora to   direct the O.Ps to repair the LED T.V  within stipulated time and to grant compensation  of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony.

            The  notices of the present dispute though  was duly served on the O.Ps  but the O.P.no.1 did not choose to file written version  in the present dispute and   has been set expartee vide order dt. 26.02.18 . The  O.P. no.2 appeared  through their learned  advocate and filed their written statement  stating that there is  no cause of action to bring the present complaint against  parties  . The Consumer complaint is only maintainable if alleged defect of  goods is established to be manufacturing defect within warranty period  and this is not a case of  deficiency in service  . In the present complaint, adequate service is provided to complaint to her satisfaction, whenever a complaint lodged by her before Authorized service center  all products of Samsung are provided with one year manufacturers warranty where in it is agreed to provide services and repair of the product free of cost ,excluding certain specific circumstances . However, some times additional warranty is provided for limited services only and to avail such services, warranty card is required before service center . It is submitted that terms mentioned in first year basis warranty is completely different in comparison to additional warranty availed by petitioner. The present complaint extended warranty is covered to the extent of replacement of panel only subject to fulfillment of other conditions agreed under the extended warranty .  

            After proper presale demonstration  and being fully satisfied the petitioner purchased the LED TV . A complaint was lodged alleging no display in TV ,after expiry of 1^st one year  i.e on 11.10.17 .  It was detected that minor component  only panel of the T.V  is damaged due to external force . In such circumstances , warranty is generally  void.  The petitioner  was provided with  additional one year warranty on panel of the TV  for which the complaint  was attained by replacing the panel of the TV vide Job No.4247090515 on 21.11.17 .

Another complaint was lodged by the complainant on 13.11.17 and same was attended by generating Job no.4249478391. After registration of  such complaint complainant was unable to give any specific appointment date and time for inspection of the

TV by technical persons deputed by O.P.no.3 and the complaint was closed on 15.11.17 . After seeking several appointment date for inspection of TV , complainant refused to avail any such services on chargeable basis apprehending her television is covered within basis warranty conditions, where as she admitted in  the complaint that service under extended warranty is availed by her by availing spares free of cost . In such circumstances ,this is not a case to  establish  defect in goods or deficiency in service. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed.

            The O.P.no.3 himself appeared and field their written version  taking that  the O.p.no.3 is the authorized service of O.p.no.1 .  The O.P.no.3 provide service verity product of O.p.no.2, as per terms, condition and warranty policy condition of O.p.no.2.  it is further stated that  it is undisputed fact that the complainant purchased the above LED TV from O.p.no.1 .After completion of the original warranty of the product i.e one year , the complainant demand for additional warranty and by mistake the O.p.no.3 provide additional warranty service of the above product for one time. Subsequently it was observed from the company (O.P.no.2) that such product not  cover under additional warranty policy of O>p.no.2. hence the O.P.no.3 did not provide any service free of cost , there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of O.P.no.3 . The O.P.no.3 working as per terms and condition of O.p.no.2.

                      On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned  advocate of the O.P no2.  and the petitioner  .Perused the record and documents in details and observed that  it is undisputed fact that the petitioner has purchased the  alleged TV. Set from O.P.no.1 paying  consideration amount of Rs24,500 /- on dt.07.08.16 vide invoice no. Rl :1358      .The said product provide two years of warranty from the date of purchase from that one year basis warranty and one year additional  warranty  and after completion of basis warranty the product  suffered from defect  and was rectified by o.p.no.3 on 16.10.17  who is the authorized service center of O.P.no.2.  Again the said product became defective on 20.11.17  The complainant  lodged the complain before the o.ps  but the O.P.no. 2  stated in the written version   that the complainant  was unable to give  any specific appointment date and  time  for inspection of the  TV  by the technical person  deputed by O.P.no.3  .Accordingly  the complain was closed on 15.11.17.  and in the present complaint  extended warranty is covered  to the extent          of  replacement of panel only subject to fulfillment of other conditions agreed under the extended warranty  . . On the other hand the o.p3 who is the authorized service center of o.p.no.2 (manufacture) of  LED TV  . Categorically  stated in the written version that  such LED TV  was not covered under  the   additional warranty of O.P.no.2  . where as the seller of above alleged TV  (O.P.no.1) remained silent  in the above dispute  . In view of the above observation  it is crystal clear that  there are contradicting  statement from O.p.no.2 and 3 in the written version regarding extended warranty of the alleged LED.   Hence , there is  patent deficiency of service on the part of O.p.no.2 and 3 to give  service during  the period of warranty of  the above alleged  LED  TV   and  have taken   two types  of statement in their written version . The O.P.no,2   stated in their written version  that the  complainant  did not cooperate with  the service Engineer for inspection of the LED TV . On the other the O.P.No.3 stated that in the  written version  the said  LED  TV     did not cover on the additional  warranty.

            Accordingly  we are inclined to hold that the O.Ps have  not provided  with the  essential service to the complainant  during the period of warranty of the above alleged lED TV . Accordingly  the O.ps are jointly and severally liable for the alleged occurrence / defect .

Hence this Order

The O.Ps are also  directed to replace the above LED TV   of the  same model and same size   within  7 days after receipt of this order ,failing which  the O.Ps  are liable to  pay the  cost of the LED TV  along  with 9 % interest from the date of purchase till its  realization .  No cost.     

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of May,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.