Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a LG LED TV from OP No.2 on payment of due consideration of Rs.97,500/-. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant has got the warranty period one year and also extended same for two years on payment of necessary charges. It is alleged that after few months of use of the TV, it became defective. He took the TV for repairing but the OPs neglected to repair the same. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint for replacement of the TV with a new one.
4. OP No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable under the Act and they have denied the allegation. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. OP No.2 was set ex parte.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxxxxx
In resultant the complaint petition is allowed against the Ops.
i) The OP No.1 (manufacturer) is directed to replace the LGLED TV with a new one latest version with fresh warranty in lieu of defective product LG LED which is now available in the service centre of Bhubaneswar(Odisha).
ii) The Op No.2 (Dealer) is directed to refer the matter to the OP No.1 (manufacturer) for early compliance of the above order.
The entire directions shall be carried out within in 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Serve the order to theparties free of cost.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OPs are not responsible after the warranty period was over. He drew attention to the Commission to the fact that for the first time the complainant alleged about defect in the TV on 28.4.2021. Since it has come after the warranty period, they are not liable to replace the TV set. Further, he submitted that the learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that within few months of use the TV became defective for which they have taken the TV to OP No.2 but they have not performed their duty. Therefore, the complaint was filed. He supports the impugned order.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the LED TV from OP No.2 on payment of Rs.97,500/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has got the warranty period for one year for the TV purchased and subsequently, two years under extended warranty. On the written version it is clearlymentioned that for the first time the complainant brought the LED TV to the notice of the OPs on 28.4.2021 which is beyond three years of the purchase of the TV in question. When it is beyond the warranty period, the OPs are not liable to replace the TV under the warranty. Had there been defect arose within the warranty period, there was chance of interpreting the clause and also award the relief. Since it is beyond the warranty period, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the TV set. As such the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. However, before parting with this order we hereby direct both the parties amicably settle the matter by repairing the TV set in question on receiving necessary charges from the complainant. No cost.
The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
