Orissa

Cuttak

CC/158/2016

Balamukunda Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior Executive,Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

K M Patra

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.158/2016

 

Sri Balamukunda Dash,

At:Sanjibani,Shree Vihar Colony,

Tulsipur,Cuttack-753008.                                                              … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.       Sr. Executive Head,

M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Qrs. 2^nd/3^rd/4^th floor,Towr-C,Vipul Tech.

Square,Sector-43,Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon-2,Haryana.

 

2.        Samsung India,22-24^th Floor,Horizons-2,

       Golf Course Road,Sector-43,Gurgaon-122002.

 

3.        M/s. Jagannath Service,Rajendra Nagar,

       Madhupatna,Cuttack-753010.

 

4.        M/s. Patra Electronics,Sector-6,

       C.D.A,Cuttack-753014.                                                               … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

 

Date of filing:   06.12.2016

Date of Order: 18.01.2018

 

For the complainant:                      Mr. K.M.Patro,Adv. & Associates.

For  O.Ps 1 & 2 :                              Sri D.K.Nayak,Adv & Associates.

For  O.ps 3 & 4 :                                  None.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The case of the complainant is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. The case in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a Samsung Plasma PDP-43H4100 LED TV from O.P No.4 on 11.08.2014 for Rs.34,900/-.(annexure-1).  The said TV was covered with warranty of one year.  Additional warranty of another one year was also obtained on payment of additional charges.(Ananexure-2).  ON 16.11.2015 the TV developed some problem.  On 17.11.2015 O.P. No.3 was contacted through O.P No.4.  A sum of Rs.200/- was paid towards inspection charges to O.P No.4 on 17.11.2015.(Annexure-3).  O.P No.4 demanded a sum of Rs.14,280/- towards cost of panel and service charges even if the said TV was covered under warranty period of 2 years.  The complainant intimated O.P No.1 & O.P No.2 regarding such illegal demand of O.P No.3 and requested O.P No.1 & 2 to interfere on the matter and to instruct O.P No.3 to repair the said TV free of cost.  O.P No.2 advised the complainant to pay Rs.14,000/- towards cost of picture tube.  The complainant considered it as quite illegal and   issued a legal notice on O.Ps 1 & 2 on 17.02.2016 and reminded the O.Ps again on 22.08.2016.  On 20.10.2016 the complainant again reminded O.Ps 1 & 2.(Annexure-4).

Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.34,900/- towards cot of colour TV, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, to refund Rs.200/- paid as inspection charges and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Thus he has made a total claim of Rs.95,100/- against the O.Ps.

2. The O.Ps 1 & 2 vide their written brief dt.1.12.2017 has intimated that the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect of the TV and has not produced the required analysis test report/expert opinion which is essential to prove the manufacturing defect of the product.  The product was out of warranty as on date of complaint since it was under warranty for a period of one year only.  Since the TV set was not under warranty at the time of request for repair, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.  The claims made by the complainant are illegal.
3. We have gone through the case records in details and heard the advocates from both the sides at length.  We have observed that the complainant had purchased a TV (SAMSUNG PLAZMA PDP 43H4100) on 11.08.2014 from O.P No.4.  The copy of warranty under “The Joy of Triple Protection Warranty” i.e. additional 1 year warranty on SMPS failure with Joy range of television as produced by the complainant  is applicable for some selected models such as 22F 5100,28F 4100,32F 4100, 32F 4800,32F 5100,40F 5100,46F 5100 and 43F4100(as submitted by the complainant vide Annexur2,page-9).  The model purchased by the complainant was 43H 4100(Annexure-1 of the complainant) and not the model for which warranty was available for 2 years.  As such model 34 H 4100 was having warranty for one year only.

Although the complainant has stated that the additional warranty for one year was availed on payment of additional warranty charges, he has also not produced any such receipts relating to payment of such additional charges.

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, it was observed that the complainant wanted to avail undue benefits from the O.Ps even after the warranty period.  Thus it is clear that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence the case needs to be dismissed.

                                                                                ORDER

The case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 18^th day of January,2018 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                          Member.

 

                                                                                                 (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                        President.