Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant purchased on Samsung 50 watt, 32” screen (diagonally measured) LED TV, Model no.UA32//t4050 ARXXL, HSN85287219, manufactured by the OP no.1 worth Rs.16,300/- on 09.09.2021 vide invoice No. HW/SA 2122/01784 dated 09.09.2021 from the store of the above OP no.2 and at the time of purchase of said TV the OP no.1 & 2 provided this complainant one year comprehensive warranty on above TV and one year additional warranty on panel provided by manufacture from the date of its purchase and after purchase the staffs of the OP no.2 delivered the TV at the residence of this Complainant and installed the said TV on the very next date of its purchase. They connected the said TV with local cable network and at that time the functioning of said TV and screen also was clear and on the same day when my client switched on the said TV after installation and checking, the picture faded away after few minutes and a visible spot measuring about 5 (five) centimeters in each side came on the screen. This disfunctioning of said TV intermittent in nature and repeated occasion this complainant visited the store of OP no.2 but they referred the matter to the OP no.1 giving a toll free no.1800407267864 and tried to save their back from further obligation and the complainant being aggrieved tried to reach the OP no.1 by dialing the said toll free number provided by the OP no.2 from his mobile phone. But failed to connect the personnel of customer care due to unattended call on the part of OP no.1 and repeatedly this complainant tried to reach OP no.1 but they never answered the call of this complainant and the defect of the said TV of the complainant left unresolved and finding no option this complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate by registered post on 15.11.2021 requiring the OPs to resolve the said defect either by making a replacement of said TV or by repayment of the price of it within 15 days from the date of receiving the said notice and the OP no.1 & 2 received the said notice dated 15.11.2021 on 20.11.2021 & 16.11.2021 respectively. On 06.01.2022 the OP no.1 sent a reply of said notice dated 15.11.2021 wherein they tactfully shifted all the liability of delivery of defective television stating that “free of cost service and replacement is not possible from our side” and left the defect unresolved till date.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties either replacement of said TV or to pay a sum of Rs. 16,300/- with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
Defense Case:- The opposite party Nos. 1 contests the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations leveled against him and states that the complainant stated in his complaint that he had purchased the TV set from OP no.2 on September 9, 2021 worth Rs.16,300/-. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is well acquainted knowledge of the complainant that every dealer has issue a Tax invoice that specifically mentioned the product details and product cost. It is specifically stated and submitted that every product has carried out with the warranty card of the OP no.1 and in case if any special warranty given to any customer then it is subject to specific card or documents which specifically mentioned the special warranty. But complainant failed to substantiate the Tax invoice or Bill and any warranty card, which specifically mention the product cost and warranty terms.
The refusal to repair the said TV set with the knowledge that the tv set had fall under the warranty void condition and every repairs are subject to chargeable basis, therefore no cause of action has arise or at all and there has been no deficiency of service and negligent act on the part of answering OP-1 and OP-2 as the complainant himself cancelled the service request. It is worthwhile mentioned here that if a person willfully denied to service then there is no question of compensation and harassment arise. So this OP prayed to dismiss this case without cost.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party no-1.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
BNA have been filed by both sides. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of complainant at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the them.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
The complainant has specific case of purchasing the LED TV model no. UA32T4045ARXXL, HSN85287219 manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. From Raipur Electronics Pvt. Ltd.( to be called OP 2 herein after) worth Rs. 163000/ on 9/9/21 vide invoice no. HW/SA2122/01784 dated 9/9/21. The installation of the said TV was done by the person of OP 2 and at that time the functioning of the TV was ok and the screen was also clear but on the same day when the complainant switched on the TV after installation and checking, the picture faded away within a moment and a visible spot measuring about 5 cm in each side appeared in the screen. This defect was intimate to OP 2 and the message was also communicated about such defect to the OP 1 which gives rise of the instant proceeding for some reliefs claimed in the petition of complaint.
Inspite of service of notice the OP 2 does not appear to contest the case. The instant proceeding was contested by OP 1only.the OP 1 contests the case by filling written version stating therein about nonobservance about formalities in the consumer protection Act and has also submitted some observations of the Hon’ble court it alleges that “the customer details cum warranty” card elaborates the warranty terms and conditions and the warranty covers only the defects in product out of manufacturing of faulty workmanship within the warranty period. But in the present case that defects due to causes which is “ warranty void condition “and in such situation any repair or replacement of the spare parts are subject to payment of required charges as per the warranty policy. The answering OP 1 does not provide free of cost repair or replacement of the spare parts in case of warranty void situation. The specific case of OP 1is that an acknowledgement of service request was issued by service engineer on the basis of the complaint lodge by the complainant which does not tantamount to the acknowledging the allege defect. It appears that a separate complaint was lodged with the service centre of OP 1 on 18/12/21 and 27/12/21 that the TV set does not start and no picture has shown. “ after inspection by the service engineer it found that the panel has broken due to internal damage so the TV set has fall under the ‘ warranty void condition’; no free of cost repair can be possible”. The estimate letter specifically states the amount of the repair cost which has been refused by the complainant and hence “it is apparent that there had been no deficiency in service.”
The BNA of the OP 1 alleges that photocopy of purchase invoice was not served upon the OP 1 and there is a detailed note at page 6 where warranty coverage is not applicable.
The specific allegation that the service engineers visited the residence of the complainant on 30/9/21 to inspect the said LED tv. Upon inspection it transpired to the service engineer that the panel of the said TV was broken. It further appears from the BNA of OP 1 at page 8that the answering OP through its service centre was all along ready to provide service to the complainant subject to payment of the required cost.
Admittedly, the BNA of OP 1 consists of 10 pages and the written version consists of 13 pages much has been stated about failure to provide purchase invoice and the inspection of the TV in question by the service engineers but it appears surprising to note that there is failure on the part of the OP 1 relating to non submission of tax invoice. It appears that the complainant has filed the said tax invoice which has been issued by OP 2dated 9/9/21 and though much has been stated about inspection of the TV by the service engineers, it appears surprising to note that the report of any such service engineer is conspicuously absent. On consideration of the facts and circumstances stated herein above there cannot be any denial of the fact that since purchase of the LED TV in question the complainant cannot visualize the picture with his full satisfaction an also the fact remains that the report of the expert engineer though stated much about it, yet the same has also not been brought into light. When it appears from the BNA of OP 1 at page 8 was all along ready to provide service to the complainant subject to payment of the required cost, it seems prudent to dispose of the case with the observation that the petitioner would make expenditure of 50 % of the cost and rest of the expenditure would be borne by OP 1to settle the matter in dispute.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence
ordered
that the complaint case no. 15 of 2022 be and the same is disposed of with observation that the petitioner will incur expenditure of 50% of the repair of the TV in question and the OP 1 will bear the rest of the amount of the expenditure in order to get repair of the TV. Such repair must take place within 30 days from date and a compliance report in this regard to be submitted by both the parties within 45 days from date.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
