Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of TV or in the alternative Rs.28,000/- costs of TV; Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and for costs.  

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The 1^st opposite party is dealer of 2^nd opposite party for selling Samsung TVs.   The complainant on 29-11-10 purchased Samsung LCD TV for Rs.28,000/- from the 1^st opposite party.   Since the date of purchase the said television did not work properly.   The complainant informed the same to the 1^st opposite party on 08-12-10. The complainant went USA and stayed there for about six months.   After her return from USA the complainant found the said TV did not function properly.   The complainant informed the same to one Murthy, sales officer in their servicing centre.   The opposite parties did not provide proper service to rectify the defect and they were careless.  The 2^nd opposite party through their service centre gave reply on 28-01-12 to the complainant informing her to pay Rs.16,666/- for repair.   The opposite parties delayed in attending to the repairs of the TV though the complainant complained the defect on 08-12-10.   In spite of notice the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect.   The attitude of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is thus:

        The 1^st opposite party is dealer for Samsung products including TVs for sales only.   The 1^st opposite party is not at all responsible for servicing, manufacturing defect or any other defects.  The complainant ought to have brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party or authorized service centre regarding the functioning of TV.  The complainant lodged a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party on                   08-11-11 i.e., one year after the warranty period.   The complainant lodged a complaint with the 1^st opposite party on 08-12-11 but not on 08-12-10 as mentioned in the complaint.   After receipt of legal notice dated 11-01-12 the 1^st opposite party informed regarding the functioning of TV to the 2^nd opposite party who assured that they will look after the matter. The complainant filed this complaint against the 1^st opposite party with a view to have wrongful gain.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

        The complainant neither pleaded deficiency of service nor manufacturing defect and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   In the event of any complaint about functioning of TV it has to be brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party or the authorized service centre.   The 2^nd opposite party is not aware of the complainant informing 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party is a customer friendly organization.   The complainant on 08-12-11 lodged a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party after the period of warranty.   The complainant can avail services together with spare parts on payment basis only.    The complainant did not file any document to show that she gave complaint on 08-12-10.   The 2^nd opposite party immediately informed the complainant that she has to pay Rs.16,666/- towards spare part and service charges.   The complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and were made to suit her convenience.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite parties respectively.

6.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

7.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant purchased Samsung LCD TV on 29-11-10           from the 1^st opposite party (Ex.A-1=B-3).

1. The complainant gave a registered notice to the 1^st opposite party on 11-01-12 (Ex.A-2 and A-3).

1. The 2^nd opposite party addressed a letter to the complainant requiring her to pay Rs.16,666/- (Ex.A-6=B-2 and A-4).

8.  POINT No.1:-   The complainant did not file any warranty along with the complaint.   On the other hand,  the opposite parties filed proforma warranty for Samsung products (Ex.B-4) wherein it was mentioned that warranty for colour television for all the parts is twelve months.   Even the complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant was silent regarding the period of warranty.  

9.   It is the case of the complainant that she complained to the                  1^st opposite party about the improper functioning of television purchased under Ex.A-1 on 08-12-10.    The opposite parties denied the same and contended that the complainant informed them on              08-12-11.   Burden is on the complainant to prove that she complained to the 1^st opposite party on 08-12-10.  The complainant did not file any documents to show the same. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed Exs.B-1, B-5 and B-6. Ex.B-2 is office copy of Ex.A-6.  In Ex.B-2 and A-6 at the top the date mentioned was                       25-01-11.   But in Ex.B-2 25-01-2011 was corrected to 25-01-12.   Counsel for the opposite parties contended that it was a typographical mistake and further submitted that the opposite parties sent Ex.A-6 through courier service.   Ex.B-5 and B-6 revealed that the                     2^nd opposite party sent Ex.A-6 letter through DTDC courier to the complainant who in turn received it on 28-01-12.     It is also not the case of the complainant that she received Ex.A-6 much earlier to              28-01-12.   It can therefore be inferred that the date mentioned on the top of Ex.A-6 as 25-01-11 is a typographical error.  The opposite parties further relied on Ex.B-1 i.e., customer service card to show that the complainant made a complaint regarding functioning of TV on 08-12-11 only.   Ex.B-1 contained the signature written as G. Bhavani.  

10.  The opposite parties as it appears intends to take advantage (in the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf of the complainant showing the date of complaint made) available to them in the affidavit of the complainant wherein it was mentioned “In fact the complaint was made by the complainant on 08-12-2011 but the opposite party did not attend to rectify the defect until she left India on 17-02-11 to USA till she return 10-07-11 and there from also they never cared for the repair of the said TV and postponed all this days and finally a notice was also given”.

11.  In the absence of any documentary evidence showing that the complainant made her grievance known to the opposite parties we have left with no other option to infer that the complainant made her grievance known on 08-12-11.   As already observed the complainant failed to mention the period of warranty.   Thus in our considered opinion the complainant is lacking material particulars i.e., warranty card and making her grievance in writing within the warranty period.   The 2^nd opposite party undertook to execute repair/replace the damaged part on payment of necessary charges as it was beyond the period of warranty. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service by adducing cogent evidence.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.  

12.  POINT No.2:- In view of above findings, in the result the complainant is not entitled to any damages and therefore answer this point accordingly.

13.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.  

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 10^th day of October, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: 

        PRESIDENT