The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by O.P No.1 & 2, where in O.P No.1 is the Dealer, O.P No.2 is the authorised service centre of O.P No.3 and O.P No.3 is the head Office of O.P No.1 and this Complainant is a Consumer under these O.Ps.

                         Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased one L.E.D T.V bearing Model No.UA23H4003ARLXL on 05.04.2014 vide invoice No.SC-1541 from the O.P No.1. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only to O.P No.1 towards its consideration amount and obtained warranty card for the said SAMSUNG L.E.D (T.V) from O.P No.1, which covers warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. up to 04.04.2015. On 20.01.2015, the Complainant faced some mechanical problems like two vertical line on screen/ straw black line over the screen, resulting no visible picture in the screen. Thereafter, the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 and complained about the defect of said L.E.D T.V. The Complainant went to O.P No.2 (the authorised service centre of O.P No.1 & 3) on 22.01.2015 for repair of the said L.E.D T.V as per advice of O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 issued a service job sheet to the Complainant after receipt of the defective L.E.D T.V from him and assured to deliver the same on 24.01.2015. On 24.01.2015, the O.P No.2 instead of delivery the same to the Complainant demanded a sum of Rs.7,188.84/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred eighty eight and eight four paisa) only to the Complainant towards repair cost stating “no further warranty on liquid damage”. Moreover, the O.P No.2 refused to give service on warranty basis and also refused to repair the said L.E.D T.V without payment, even after several request made by the Complainant to O.P No.1 and O.P No.2. Both the O.P No.1 and 2 bluntly refused to extend free service and to repair without cost. Non-repair/ replacing defective L.E.D T.V within the warranty period amounts to deficiency-in-service on the part of the O.Ps. The Complainant is legally entitled to get a new L.E.D (T.V) from the O.Ps and due to non-repair/ replacement of said L.E.D (T.V), the Complainant suffers from harassment and mental agony.

                         Prayer for compensation towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost including cost of L.E.D T.V.

                         On scrutiny of the documents placed on record, it is noticed that the notices are dispatched to the O.Ps through Regd. Post with A.D on 27.02.2015. Neither the O.Ps represented themselves nor submitted their written versions hence, they are set ex-parte i.e. on 05.08.2015. The invoice No.SC1541, dt.05.04.2014 filed by the Complainant confirms about sell of one L.E.D T.V (SAMSUNG) by O.P No.1 to the Complainant for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only. Work Order No. Nil, dt.22.01.2015 by O.P No.2 confirms about receipt of same T.V for repair by O.P No.1 from the Complainant, mentioning nature of Complainant as reported by Customer is “2 vertical line on screen”. NHHP Estimate dt.24.01.2015 by O.P No.2 clearly indicates the Engineer of O.P No.2 had inspected the said L.E.D T.V and the O.P No.2 had estimated a sum of Rs.7188.84/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred eighty eight and eight four paisa) only for repair of the same, reason being “After inspection our Engineer found the panel is defective and it will not consider under warranty due to liquid damage”.

                         On reviewing the Customer details-cum-Warranty card issued by O.P No.1 to the Complainant, where it is noticed that there are certain warranty conditions in the warranty booklet, such as:-

Sl. No.3-  It is the responsibility of the Purchaser to contact the nearest authorised service centre and bring the unit to the authorised service centre at Purchaser’s cost and risk.        

Sl. No.5-  In the event of repairs of any part/s of the unit, this warranty will thereafter continue and remain in force only for the unexpired period of the warranty.

                         Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as “the Company”) guarantees to the purchaser that this product carries a warranty for the period mentioned above commencing from the date of purchase. The Company will repair free of charge any part or parts of the product, if the defect is due to the faulty material or workmanship.

            Product                   Period             Warranty           Parts not covered   

A. Colour Television          12 months                                                    N/A

                         From the tabular form as reflected in the “Customers details-cum-Warranty card, it is noticed that all parts in Colour Television are included/ covered under warranty clause. Further, as per NHHP Estimate dt.24.01.2015 as filed by the Complainant, where the O.P No.2 has admitted that the said L.E.D T.V is under coverage of warranty period and also admitted to the extent that the same L.E.D T.V is defective, so far as the panel is concerned. Due to non-repair/ non-replacement of the said T.V amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps to the Complainant and mental agony and harassment also. Hence, the order:-

                                                       O R D E R

                         Having all regards to our judgment reflected above, the Complainant bears merit and the same is allowed with direction to O.Ps No.1 to 3 jointly or severally to repair the defective L.E.D T.V in free of cost with utmost satisfaction of the Complainant within 30 days from the communication of this order. The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred) only being compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation cost.

                         The ex-parte order pronounced in the Open Forum on this day i.e. the 25th day of July, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.