MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The factual matrix of the complaint is that, the complainant had purchased a TV set Make Sony bearing model name KLV-24P412B vide Serial No.8076235 on dated 24/06/2014 from the OP.No-01 by paying an amount of Rs.16,800/-. After purchase of just some months, the said TV set became shows problems. The complainant approached the OP.1 in the month of October 2014 for repair who assured the complainant to replace a new TV instead of the defective one but for no action. Hence the complainant time and again approached the OP.s, but the OP.s instead of valid warranty neither replaced the TV nor paid the price of the set. Hence the complainant became sure that, the set has some manufacture defect which could not be repaired by the OP.s. So there is gross negligence on the part of OP.s and for which the complainant harassed and inflicted great humility, physical discomfort. Hence the complainant craves the leave of this forum along with an affidavit and he prayed the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of the said TV set along with a cost of Rs.60,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigation for such negligence and deficiency in service by the OP.s.
2. The counsel for OP.s has filed counter version in the case and stated that, the present case is vexatious and baseless. That the complainant purchase the said TV on 24.06.2014 and approached the service center first time on 27.10.14 with the complaint of broken LCD Panel and upon physical inspection, the service engineer found that the TV set was damaged by external factor. Hence as per terms and conditions of warranty, physical damage is not covered in warranty. Therefore the complainant was informed that the said TV set could not be repaired free of cost under the terms of warranty but it could have been repaired on a chargeable basis. After inspection of the service engineer an estimate of Rs.9303/- was provided to the complainant which was never agreed by the complainant. The service warranty conditions clause 3 clearly states that,
“This warranty does not cover any failure of the product due to normal wear and tear, or due to misuse, including but not limited to use in other than the normal and customary manner, in accordance with the instructions for use and maintenance of the product. Nor does this warranty cover any failure of the product due to accident, modification or adjustment, acts of God or damage resulting from liquid.”
3. The counsel for complainant has filed the retail invoice of the TV, copy of warranty card along with an affidavit in support of his claim. The counsel for OP.s has filed copy of warranty card, photo copies of alleged TV and an affidavit in support of counter. The counsels for both the parties have been heard the case at length and the submissions considered.
4. It reveals from the record that, the counsel for complainant has filed nothing except a retail invoice of the said TV. On the other hand the OP.s filed copy of annexure and photo copies of the said TV as evidence. On hearing the complainant was advised to produce the alleged TV before the forum for necessary verification but the complainant failed to do so. We found from the copy of evidences/annexure by the OP.s that, the said TV has some external scratches as contended. The model number and serial number has also tallied with the alleged TV. The OP.s filed the counter & evidences basing on affidavit which the complainant has never objected in the process of adjudication. Hence in our view the TV in question was externally broken prior to approach the OP.s and the OP.s lawfully denied rendering warranty service to it. Thus the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OP.s does not stand proved by the complainant, hence the claims leveled by the complainant is dismissed with an order as to no costs.
Pronounced in the open forum on 22th day of July' 2015.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
Date of Preparation:
Date of dispatch :
Date of received by
the A/A for Ops / Complainant :
Initial of the dispatcher.
