For the Complainant                       - In Person

For the OP                                         -  Shreya Basu, Advocate

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant, in a nut shell; is that he purchased a LCD TV of Samsung in the year 2013 from Harmoney House Pvt. Ltd., a Registered Dealer of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and on 30.06 .2017 at night when he switched on the TV set and noticed and there was double image on the screen of the subject Television Set. That on 01.07.2017 he made an official complaint to the OP over telephone which was docketed as Serial No. 4239839049. Technician of OP inspected the TV set against charge of Rs.295/- vide Receipt No. 65115 dated 01.07.2017 and opined that there was defect inside the panel of the TV which is to be replaced and estimated cost of Rs.15,097/- was given. The subject TV was purchased against payment of Rs.20,500/-. The complainant vide email dated 03.07.2017 intimated the OP that due to mechanical / other defects why the consumer should be liable to pay the estimated cost and requested the OP to immediately repair the TV set free of cost.  That on 04.07.2017  the Executive of OP contacted with the complainant over mobile phone and convinced that they would  repair the subject TV replacing the panel against payment of Rs.15,097/-. The complainant further alleged that the subject TV set has inherent manufacturing defect for which the OP is liable to bear the cost of repair after the warranty period. The OP being a famous multinational electronic company cannot keep the issue pending for months together. Finding no other alternative, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint for rectification of the defected TV set free of cost including compensation and litigation cost.

            The OP contested the case by filing a Written Version contending inter alia that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the instant consumer complaint on the ground that the registered office of the OP is at New Delhi which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The specific case of the OP is that the alleged manufacturing defect cannot be determined on the simple oral submission of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The onus to prove the manufacturing defect it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before alleging that there was manufacturing defect. The terms of warranty does not cover refund or replacement of subject TV and the claim of the complainant is not permissible under the terms of service contract or warranty. The subject TV was out of warranty coverage for which the complainant is liable to bear the cost of repair. The OP acted in accordance to their warranty terms and condition and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The OP is ready and willing to repair the subject TV subject to payment of repairing cost. Thus, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.

Decision with Reasons

Both parties led evidence through affidavit in support of their respective cases. They have also filed Brief Notes of Arguments. We have gone through the consumer complaint coupled with its written version including evidence of the parties and documents relied by them.

It remains undisputed that the complainant purchased the subject TV on 23.02.2013 from Harmoney House Pvt. Ltd., Park Street, Kolkata, a registered dealer of OP. Complainant noticed regarding double image on the screen of the subject TV on 30.06.2017 at night and following day he registered a complaint being docket No. 4239839049 and the technician of the OP inspected the TV set against charge of Rs.295/- and opined that there is a defect inside the panel of the TV which is to be replaced against estimated cost of Rs.15,097/-. According to the complainant, the OP being a famous multinational electronic company cannot keep the issue for a long period. On perusal of the warranty card annexed with the W/V of OP, it appears to us that the warranty period of the subject TV was 12 months from the date of purchase. The limited warranty shall cover the defects arising in the product only out of manufacturing or faulty workmanship. The subject TV was in working condition since its purchase till 30.06.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that the subject TV was defective and there was manufacturing defect, if really there was any manufacturing defect how the complainant used the TV set since 23.02.2013 to 30.06.2017. Complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect by providing any cogent evidence by any expert or test was carried out by the Government Laboratory.

In M. J. Abraham –Vs- Angel Agencies & Ors. reported in III (2000) CPJ 544 Videocon International Limited –Vs-Viyjayan & Ors. reported in 1999 (1) CPR 20, it has been held by the Hon’ble NCDRC that for replacement of product the defect must be manufacturing and for proving manufacturing defects Expert Report is essential. Replacement of defects of the TV set free of cost is not permissible under the terms of warranty policy. In the case of StereoCraft –Vs- Monotype India Ltd. New Delhi reported in 2000 (1) CPC 3 the Hon’ble Apex Court  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. In a case reported in (2006) 4 SCC 644 (Maruti Udyog Ltd. – Vs- Susheen Kumar Gabgotra the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to held that where a warranty condition is specifically stated a contrary implied warranty cannot  be imputed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704 (Bharat Knitting  -  Vs. D.H.L Worldwide  also held that in case of specific terms in the contract, the parties will be bound by the terms of the contract. The warranty of the product means that in case of any problem with the LCD TV within warranty period, the LCD TV will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the LCD TV is subject to conditions mentioned in the warranty policy that comes with the product manual. Complainant purchased Samsung LCD TV on 23.02.2013 from Harmoney House Pvt. Ltd. an authorized dealer of the OP and enjoyed it till 30.06.2017. The warranty period was one year only from its date of purchase i.e. 23.02.2013. Warranty period has already been elapsed. As such any repair and / or replacement of spare parts is subject to payment of requisite cost. The Service Engineer of the OP given estimated cost of repair to the complainant and the complainant demanded repair and / or replacement of damaged panel of the subject TV free of cost. For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that the subject TV was defective; in that event it should be detected soon after its purchase. The OP cannot go beyond its warranty terms and condition. Complainant used the subject TV for four and half years from its purchase which itself indicates that the subject TV was not having any inherent manufacturing defect in any manner whatsoever. In our opinion, there is no deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.

In the result, the case merit fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP. No cost is imposed upon any of the parties.