Brief fact of this case is that, Complainant Sri Rakesh Kumar Mahana has purchased one Samsung LED TV 32” model, UA-32 FAHA 4003 RLXL Sl.No.OA8W3PBK304461 on dt.16.06.2018 from OP.No.1 valued at Rs.19,400/- vide money receipt No.193 for his private use. The OP.No.1 is the Sub-Dealer , OP.No.2 is the Branch Officer at Bhubaneswar and OP.No.3 is the manufacturer Company. After few days of purchase within the period of warranty the said T.V. developed problems such as bad quality. So, the complainant time and again intimated the fact to Op.No.1 to rectify the defects. When no step has been taken by the OP.No.1 the petitioner intimated through his Advocate and served a legal notice on dt.05.01.2019 to Op.No.1 and OP.No.2. But neither the Ops took any action to remove the defects.The complainant is a consumer of the Ops and the Ops are the service providers and under obligation to give/render service to this complain, they failto doand put the complainant to mental agony and harassment for which the Ops are liable for their deficiency of service. Hence the complainant prayed to pass necessary order to remove the defects raised in the LED TV. In case failed to repair the TV then refund the total cost of the TV i.e. Rs.19,400/- with 10% interest from the date of defect and further to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation and the complaint petition is valued at Rs.30,000/-.
The complainant relies upon the following documents:
- Photocopy of Retail invoice.
- Photocopy of Warranty card.
- Photocopy of pleader Notice..
Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. The OP.No.1 was set exparte due to non appearance. In their written version the Op No.2 & 3 through their authorised signatories stated thatthe OP.No.3 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,1956 and having its Registered Office at A-25,Ground Floor, Front tower Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 and is a global renowned manufacturer of various types of electronics household items. The OP is well supported by service Centres having excellent setup for after sales servicing of its products which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel only. That the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Hon’ble forum by suppressing the materials facts. The complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a “consumer dispute” under Consumer protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the TV set nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice being established against the Ops, hence the averments and/or allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable for rejection. The answering OP submits that the allegations of the complainant in respect of manufacturing defects in TV SET in absence of an expert report miserably fails and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The OP herein relies on the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of K.L.Arora Vs. Groovy Communications(2002)3 CRP 92(NC) for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in TV SET made in the complaint. The OP craves leave to file an affidavit of the Service Engineer, being the expert to prove that the complainant allegations are baseless and unjustified. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum, in absence of an expert report on behalf of the complainant, ought to have directed the complainant to produce an expert’s report in support of his allegations as provided in section 13(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act and in absence of the same, the allegations of the complaint cannot be established and the instant complaint ought to be dismissed with costs. The contents of para 1 of the complaint as stated are not denied in absence of knowledge. It is submitted that the OP do business of selling products with its dealers on Principal to Principal basis. The OP has not control or interfere in the business of the complainant. The Opp. Party’s role is limited up to the product quality and warranty benefits of the TV set in question. This warranty is provided by manufacturer under some terms and conditions which must be followed by the customers. The warranty against any malfunction in LED TV shall be repaired free of cost up to one year from the date of purchase if any trouble crops up. The complainant lodge the complain about the defect of the TV set on 22.10.2018 and 24.10.2018 and our service engineers verify the TV set and found the panel board of the TV set panel liquid damage and it needs replacement. As it is not covered under warranty, we immediately intimated to the complainant on 25.10.2018 by giving an estimate of panel board. So, all the allegation made by the complainant are false. It is submitted that the complainant has lodged his complaint before the Hon’ble forum after his warrantee is expired and because of water lodge the problem was arose. So, water lodge is not covered under warranty. There is neither any complain intimated to OP by the complainant nor any deficiency on the part of answering OP. Therefore, there is no question of any loss to the complainant, as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed. In this respect the OP relies on MS VIDEOCON International Ltd. -vs- K VIYJAYAN & OTHERS 1999(I) CPR 20 wherein it has been held by the Commission that for replacement of a product, the defect must be manufacturing and for proving the manufacturing defects Expert Report is essential. That, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stereocraft-Vs- Monotype India Ltd. New Delhi(2000,NCJ SC(59) has clearly held that when terms of warranty does not cover refund or replacement then the consumer cannot claim either replacement or refund during or after the lapse of warranty period. The consumer can only claim repairing of the product if permissible under the terms of service contract or warranty. 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.
The OP Insurance Company has not filed any documents.
On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
FINDINGS
All the issues are inter-related to each other. They had discussed jointly.Due to absence of parties for hearing the case is decided on merits basing on their complain and written version with documents. The complainant has purchased one SAMSUNG LED TV having TAX Invoice on dt.16.06.2018.So he is a consumer of Ops. It is also a fact that due to defects in LED TV the complainant informed the Ops and the technical person of Ops verified the TV on dt.24.06.2018 and found panel board of TV set panel liquid damage which needs replacement and it is not covered under the warranty. So, Ops No.2&3 intimated the complainant by giving an estimate of panel board which needs to be replaced at cost, but the complainant demanded for replacement free of cost. In absence of technical expert report the complain of the complainant cannot be decided. In this respect the OP relies on a citation of MS VIDEOCON International Ltd. Vs K Viyjayan& Others 1999(I) CPR 20 wherein it has been held by the Commission that for replacement of a product, the defect must be manufacturing and for proving the manufacturing defects Expert Report is essential. Further, Hon’ble Supreme court in Stereocraft Vs Monotype India Ltd. New Delhi(2000,NCJ SC(59) has clearly held that when terms of warranty does not cover refund or replacement then the consumer cannot claim either replacement or refund during or after the lapse of warranty period. The consumer can only claim repairing of the product if permissible under the terms of service contract or warranty. 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.
Under the above situation, this Commission feels that the complainant has filed this case without any valid documents to prove replacement of LED defective TV. He has suppressed the facts and has come to the Court without clean hand. So, this case is not maintainable at this stage. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The OPs has not made any deficiency of service.
ORDER
The complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
