DATE OF DISPOSAL: 16.01.2019
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy, Member:
The complainant Purna Chandra Patra 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 is that he purchased a LED television LLOYED, L 32 N 25 on dated 18.10.2017 from the O.P.No.1 vide retail invoice serial No. 3045 for Rs.18,500/-. The O.P.No.1 is the dealer of LLOYED to sell electronic goods of the company. At the time of purchased O.P.No.1 has also issued a certificate of warranty with blank and said the warranty comes from the date of purchased hence no need to write in warranty card. After 35 days of purchased the LED television was out of order and no display showed. He lodged a complaint at LLOYED Service center on 21.11.2017 with complaint ID-78078 but no action taken by the service center, again on 28.11.2017 another complaint lodged vide complaint ID-93738 but no respond. He took the television at service centre, when he opened the TV found that the panel with glass has broken. The service center denied receiving the LED television and the complainant return back without any reason. On 14.12.2017 he sent a mail to the company O.P.No.3 stating the facts but they also do not take any action since today. After contacted to the O.Ps they stated that the TV does not come under warranty. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the cost of the LED television Rs.18,500/- with compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. No.1 filed a reply dated 6.2.2018. It is stated that the complainant purchased a LED television, LLOYD 32 N 25 on dated 18.10.2017 from the IBC systems, Berhampur vide retail invoice sl. No. 3045 for Rs.18,500/-. It is not true that the time of purchase IBC Systems has also issued a certificate of warranty with blank and said the warranty come from the date of purchased hence no need to write in warranty card, the complainant can verify the warranty card is filled up with seal and signature. Remain as per Para 3,4,5 OP No.1 has no knowledge about the communication between company and customer, complainant never come to us or communicate with us, so we are ignore about the case. In his email dated 14.12.2017 also no communication with IBC Systems. As per the declaration in our invoice, we are clearly declare that IBC Systems is not responsible for any warranty and guarantee. All warranty and guarantee as per the parents company terms and conditions or its authorized service center terms and conditions. And complainant also agrees with above terms and conditions and took machine from us. So, as per the terms and condition of the warranty card, the service centre and the complainant by taking necessary steps for settlement of the disputes between the consumer and the company and O.P.No.1 no way responsible or suppose to interfere with dispute regarding consumer complaint between the consumer and the company. So it is requested to dispose the proceeding treating this reply.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No. 2 & 3 filed version through his advocate. It is stated at the outset the O.Ps denies and disputes the contents and averments contained in the complaint of the complainant save and except the matters of records and begs to provide with details explanation and assertion of facts hereinafter and in reply to the each and every contentions mentioned in different paragraphs of the complainant of the complainant. It is true as per invoice attached that the complainant had purchased the LED television and raised a request for installation of the same on 19.10.2017 which was recorded as complaint ID No. HIL 1910171075309. The O.P. received complaints from the complainant on 21.11.2017 which was promptly attended by the O.P.No.3 and found that the TV panel was broken which is not covered under warranty. It is pertinent to mention here that the TV panel was found broken after 35 days from the date of purchase which makes it clear that it was due to the negligence of the complainant himself. Had the TV panel was broken before the purchase, installation the complainant would have complained about it immediately? This fact was informed to the complainant and when complainant was asked to sign the job sheet the complainant refused to sign. Thereafter again on 28.11.2017, 11.12.2017 and 03.01.2018 the complainant registered complaints which were also promptly addressed to and found that the TV panel was broken which is not covered under warranty and it was also explained to the complainant but he refused to sign the job sheet. So all these complaints were registered as waste call as customer refused to pay for repairs. The OP has never refused service to the complainant and always offered to give service on chargeable basis as broken panel case is not covered in warranty but the complainant refused to pay for repairs. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, any physical damage is not covered under the head Limitations of warranty:-“Damage resulting from accidents, misuse, abuse, alterations, act of god, tampering or failure of the purchaser to follow the normal operating procedures outlined in user manual, Breakages of LED screen/plastic parts due to mishandling”. It is submitted that no cause of action arises at all as the panel was broken due to mishandling of the product by the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service at all on the part of the O.Ps. The allegation of deficiency of service against the O.Ps without any documentary evidence in supports of the allegations made in the complaint is simply the abuse of the process of law. So the complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totally. The O.Ps were always ready to repair the TV on chargeable basis as it’s an out of warranty cause but the complainant refused to pay for repairs and always insisted to get it repaired free of cost. The O.P. is still ready to resolve the issue of the complainant provided the complainant is ready to pay for the repair. Hence the O.P.No.2& 3 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of final hearing the complainant was present in person as well as the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and 3 are present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We have also thoroughly considered the submission made before us by the complainant as well as learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 & 3. In his complaint petition supported by affidavit the complainant stated that the O.Ps failed to replace the defective LED television or in alternative to refund the cost of the said television i.e. Rs.18,500/- during the warranty period. The learned advocate for O.P.No.2 and 3 submitted that the defect of the complainant’s LED television breakage of LED screen/plastic parts due to mishandling does not covered under warranty. But O.P.No.2 and 3 fails to prove that due to mishandling the plastic panel of the alleged LED television has broken. It reveals from the complaint petition of the complainant that when he opened the LED television to bring to the service centre the panel with glass has broken.
7. On foregoing discussion it is presumed that the complainant’s LED television is defective as the O.Ps have failed to file any supporting documents that for mishandling the alleged LED television, the plastic panel has broken. Hence, in our considered view, the O.P.No.2 & 3 are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.2 & 3 and we hold there is no liability on the part of the O.P.No.1 who has only sold the said LED television to the complainant.
8. As a result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against O.P.No.2 & 3 and dismissed against O.P.No.1. Both O.P.No.2 & 3 are directed to repair of the LED television of the complainant in free of cost and shall give fresh warranty to the complainant from the date of repair of the said television or in alternative to refund the cost of LED television of Rs.18,500/- to the complainant. Both O.P.No.2 & 3 shall carry out the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum. No order as to cost and compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day of 16th January 2019 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
