DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, KALAHANDI AT BHAWANIPATNA.

                                                C.C. Case  No.23/ 2018.

PRESENT

Sri Aswini Kumar Sahoo, M.A, LL.B ,OSPS(I) Sr. Retd.          President.

Smt.Bhawani Pattnaik,M.A,LL.B,PGDCLP,                             Member

Ranjan Sahoo, Aged about 50 years, S/o late Debi Prasad Sahoo,R/o At: In front of Gymnasium, Near L.B.S. Stadium, Bhawanipatna, Po: Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                        ……Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Branch Head, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, Bhubaneswar, At: Near Rasulgarh Overbridge, Sector-A, Rasulgarh, Po/Ps Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda Odisha, Pin:751007.
2. Branch Head, Reliance Retail Limited, AT: 1^st Floor, Wing-A & B,Fortune Tower, Chandrasekharpur, Po/Ps Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Odisha, PIN: 751023.
3. Manager, Reliance Digital Xpress, At: Plot No.4527,Palace Road, Bazar Pada, Po: Bhawanipatna, Ps: Bhawanipatna, Dist. Kalahandi, Odisha, Pin: 766001.
4.  

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: Sri Sailesh Kumar Behera & Soumendra Chand, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

For the O.Ps: Sri P.Ch.Mishra & Assocaites Advocate, Nabarangpur.

                                                                        JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant has purchased  one  Samsung 55 UHD Smart LED TV  vide Sl.No.DA9Y3PCJ901352  from O.P. No.2 on 24.09.2017  with a  consideration of Rs.1,31,500/-  vide  Invoice No.378710117500274 which was delivered through Jetline Service Courier on 26.09.2017. On the next date i.e. on 27.09.2017 the authorized technician of  OP NO.1 Mr.Kunal had  installed the  said LED TV and after installation the TV  was not functioned  and the technician assured  to visit on net day to rectify the defect. The technician  again visited the house of the complainant to repair the said LED TV  and during the course of repair the LEDTV  due to negligence of the technician  panel bracket was broken and again the technician assured the complainant  to visit on the next day to rectify the defect.  But  after several complaint and call  made by the complainant  to the Samsung Customer Care as well as to the technician no one attended the complaint to repair the said LED  TV. At last the complaint served  a notice to the Ops  on dt.20.12.2017  and requested to replace the defective TV  or to refund the bill amount  but the Ops remained silent  after receipt of the notice   and  hence   the complainant   finding no other option approached this forum for relief  and prayed  to direct the O.Ps  to replace the defective LED TV or to   refund the  bill amount   with compensation and cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

                         On being noticed,  the O.P No.1 appeared through their advocate and filed written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The OP No.2 & 3 neither appeared nor filed written version as such they were set exparte.

             It is submitted by the Op NO.1  that the averments are vague, baseless and with mala fide intention. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of inherent manufacturing defects in the alleged set  without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory and alleged efficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegation.  All the products manufactured by the Opposite Party are put through stringent control system, quality checks by the quality department before being cleared for dispatch to the market.          There is no complaint of deficiency of service against the Opposite Party by the complainant  and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

                                                                F I N D I N G

                        The point that would arise for determination is:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? If so,
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?

                        After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the complainant requested the technician and Opposite Parties  for repair of his LED TV but  the OP  failed to rectify the defects. The complainant stated that after  its purchase the

technician of the Opposite Party installed the LED TV in his premises but   the TV did not function and due to fault of the technician the panel bracket of the set was broken.  In spite of repeated requests also the Opp.Party did not listen to the complainant and   the OPs failed to  rectify the defects in the TV to restore its normal functioning  for which the complainant suffered mental agony and finding no other option the complainant  approached the forum for his grievance. It is the bounden duty of the OPs to rectify the  defects  which arose at the time of installation  and the  alleged TV set could not function or replace it if the defect is not reparable. In the present complaint, the OPs installed  the LED TV in the premises of the complainant after its purchase but the technician failed to installed properly and the TV set did not function. The complainant purchased the TV set  for his enjoyment by paying a huge mount of Rs.1,31,500/-but  as the TV did not function and  gave troubles after its purchase, the complainant’s wish of enjoyment of the  TV is defeated as the OPs failed to  rectify the defects completely which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The OP 1 manufacturer of the TV is liable to replace the TV.  In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant approached the OPs within the warranty period and the OPs failed to rectify the  defects, as such he approached the forum. The Ops completely failed  to rectify  the defects . So, we are of the opinion that the  OPs  have   installed a defective  LED TV  and  the panel bracket was broken  by the technician  at the time of installation. Hence a new   LED TV  of the same model with fresh warranty  be replaced to the complainant without charging any extra amount. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part with the following directions

                                                                 ORDER

                        The Opposite Parties  are directed to  replace  the   LED TV with a new one of the same model with fresh warranty to the complainant without charging any extra amount and pay monetary  compensation of Rs.5,000/-  and litigation  cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order or in alternative pay back the cost of the LED TV.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 15^th   day September,2018 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         Member                                                                      President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of  Delivery Note d t.25.09.2017
2. Copy of Warranty Card
3. Copy of  Money Receipt
4. Copy of  letter issued to the OP by the complainant
5. Copy of Postal Receipts

By the Opp.Party: Nil

                                                                                                              President