- Md. Yamin Ali,
4, Braun Feld Row,
P.S. Ekbalpore, Kolkata-27. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Sumangal House, Ground Floor,
4, Lee Road, Kolkata-20, P.S. Ballyganj.
- M/s Great Eastern Trading Co.
Old Court House Street,
Kolkata-1, P.S. Hare Street. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 19 Dated 13-04-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant has purchased a television set model Samsung 46D700046 LED TV from o.p. no.2 at a cost of Rs.1,50,000/- on 23.8.11. A copy of the receipt has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint in running page 9. The said TV has been delivered and installed at the residence of the complainant on 24.8.11.
Complainant stated that a few months after installation of the said TV, the TV started malfunctioning and for which he has informed the matter to o.p. no.2 in the month of April, 2012. After persuasion with o.p. one Mr. Surajit Mallick came at the residence of complainant on 10.8.12 and inspected the TV and told the complainant that he would come again for thorough inspection and he would do the needful as he was unable to find reason as to why the picture is not reflecting in the TV. Thereafter, o.p. company further inspected the TV and sent an estimate for repairing of the same with an estimate amount of Rs.40,488/-. The said estimate dt.27.8.12 of o.p. has been annexed by complainant in the running page 10 of the petition of complaint. Complainant had stated that malfunctioning of the TV started within the very period of warranty of the said TV. After receiving the said estimate of Rs.40,488/- complainant did not response to that estimate and has not handed over the said TV to o.p-. for taking needful action on their part. Under such condition complainant found no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 appeared in the case by filing w/v and contested the case. O.p. no.2 has not contested the case even after receipt of nocie and as such, matter has been proceeded ex parte against o.p. no.2.
In their w/v o.p. no.1 denied all the material allegations and interalia argued to dismiss the case since the case is made up of entirely false allegation since he argued that their representative and/or technician examine the said TV several times as and when complainant has been asked for and in spite of that good services rendered by o.p. no.1, complainant fabulously this case before this Forum and as such, the instant case be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
Upon considering the submissions of the contesting parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we find that though the complainant stated in para 5 of the petition of complaint that the said TV was malfunctioning very much within the warranty period. As such, o.ps. are duty bound either to repair the same or to replace by a new one. But unfortunately complainant failed to submit any warranty card or whatsoever wherefrom this Forum can ascertain that whether the malfunction as has been alleged is really started within the warranty period or not. So, without that particular warranty paper this Forum holds that complainant fails to establish his case and as such, complainant is not entitled to relief.
That the case is dismissed on contest against o.p. no.1 and ex parte against o.p. no.2 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
