The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LG LCD (22”) TV set from OP.1 on 18.04.2010 vide Bill No.66 which is manufactured by OP.2.  It is submitted that after few months of its use the set started giving problems in screen and the fact was intimated to the Ops who insisted to lodge complaint in Toll Free number.  The complainant accordingly lodged complaint but to no avail of the Ops.  After 3 months the complainant again sent mail to OP.2 and the Area Manager of OP inspected the TV and finding inherent manufacturing defect in the TV, advised the complainant to exchange the set in lieu of 15% of the cost of the TV to which the complainant did not agree.  It is submitted that the Ops have sold a defective TV which is now in defunct condition for which the complainant sustained mental agony.  Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the TV with a new one or remove the inherent manufacturing defect in the set and to pay Rs.99, 000/-  towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to participate in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that as per limitated and agreed terms and conditions of warranty, LG TV comes with 12 months warranty and the OP assures to render free service and repair in case any complaint is lodged before its ASC and never assures replacement of it.  It is contended that the alleged TV was purchased by the complainant on 18.04.2010 and its warranty expires on 18.4.2011 and after expiry of warranty, there is no scope for the complainant to claim free service.  However, the OP assures to render service through its ASC on receipt of appropriate charges for service and spare parts within its limitation but in this case no complaint is lodged or pending during validity of warranty period.  The OP further contended that on 18.4.2015 for the first time a complaint is lodged alleging “Power Problem” and on inspection it was detected that the power supply assembly requires replacement and same being a out of warranty claim, the complainant needs to pay for spare parts.  It is also further contended that the complainant did not agree for paid service in spite of repeated requests by the ASC on different dates.  Finally on 23.6.15 the complainant denied availing service on chargeable basis and for that complaint was closed.  Thus denying any deficiency in service and defect in goods, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their respective cases.  We have heard from the A/R for the OP.2 alone and perused the materials available on record for orders on merit.

4.                     In this case, purchase of LG LCD from OP.1 by the complainant on 18.4.2010 is an admitted fact.  The complainant alleges that just few months of its use the set started giving defect in its screen and the fact was intimated to Ops and through Toll Free number but no action was taken by the Ops.  The complainant further alleged that after few months, the Area Manager of Ops came to the house of the complainant and stated that due to certain inherent manufacturing defecg, the same can not be repaired and advised to exchange the set in turn of 15% of the cost of the present set.

5.                     The OP.2 stated that the complainant purchased the set on 18.4.2010 and warranty on it expired on 18.4.2011.  After warranty, there is no scope for claim of service free of cost, replacement or any such claim.  The OP further stated that on 18.4.2015 for the first time a complaint was lodged alleging power problem and after inspection it was detected that power supply assembly requires replacement and the same being a out of warranty claim, the ASC suggested for paid service.  The complainant agreed to avail paid service on 25.5.15 but subsequently on contact, the complainant denied paid service.

6.                     It is seen from the copy of retail invoice filed by the complainant that the TV in question has been purchased on 18.4.2010.  The complainant without mentioning any date stated in his complaint petition that after few months, the TV gave defect in its screen.  As per copy of warranty card filed by the complainant, it is also seen that the TV comes with a 12 months warranty on all parts from the date of purchase, that means if the TV gives defect on or before 18.4.2011 then only it is the duty of manufacturer to rectify the defect or replace the TV with a new one.  The complainant in this case has not mentioned on which date the defect developed in the TV and on which date the complaint was made before the Ops.  The copy of email request of the complainant shows the date of complaint as 15.10.2015.  From the copy of job sheet filed by the OP.2 it was ascertained that on 25.5.15 they have attended the complaint and the complainant has agreed for repair on paid service basis but thereafter, did not agree in spite of repeated contact of ASC.

7.                     From the above discussions, it was ascertained that the TV was purchased on 18.4.2010 and after expiry of warranty period, the TV became defective.  The complainant did not agree to avail cost paid service in spite of requests of the ASC of the OP.2 since out of warranty claim.  No specific date of lodging complaint with OPs has been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint petition.  As per terms of warranty, the OP assures to render service through its ASC on receipt of appropriate charges for the service and spare parts within its limitation.  Refusal of complainant to avail service definitely leads to closure of complaint.  The parties are bound by the agreed terms and conditions of warranty.  After expiry of 12 months, the warranty becomes void and the complainant is required to avail service on cost paid basis.  In this case the ASC tried his best to convince the complainant but he did not agree.  Hence the cause of action ended after warranty period is over.  This case is filed after more than 4 years and hence the case of the complainant is hit under limitation.

8.                     In view of above facts, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)