DATE OF FILING: 03.12.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.05.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant S.Ram Kumar has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he has purchased an LED (32H5100) of SAMSUNG MODEL 32” bearing Model No. LED (32H5100) for an amount of Rs.36,900/- vide Invoice No.170 dated 04.05.2014 from the O.P.No.1. After purchase the service mechanic had installed the LED in the house of the complainant and the same was operated in the running condition for about three months. After three months of the installation suddenly the picture became dark and the same was immediately reported to the O.P.No.1 over phone, for which the O.P.No.1 had directed the complainant to consult with O.P.No.2. Accordingly the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 in this regard. Thereafter the SAMSUNG LED was got repaired free of cost when it got troubled by the SAMSUNG Service Centre (O.P.No.2) who informed that the LED Tube was replaced. However the said LED gave service for about five months from the date of repair and later suddenly the sound system stopped working being Inaudible for which again the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 who sent their worker and got it repaired by receiving a costs of repair of Rs.5458/- on dated 30.06.2015 with due acknowledgment. After three months of the repair of sound system of the LED again the LED tube got damaged for which the complainant again approached the O.P.No.2 and after due repair he handed over the LED to the complainant. On 11.05.2016 again the LED got damaged and was not operating for which again the complainant approached the O.P.No.2 for repair then the O.P.No.2 took the LED with him on 12.05.2016 and since then the same has not yet been handed over to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 has sold a defective product to him which repeatedly causing disturbances as a result the complainant had to suffer from the enjoyment of LED though spent a lot of money and the O.P.No.1 & 2 acted negligently without having any minimum responsibilities to replace an alternative product of LED to the complainant. The complainant constrained to issue a notice on 24.05.2016 to the O.P.No.1 & 2 with a request to replace a new LED within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter though the o.P.No.1 & 2 received the notice of the complainant but did not choose to replace the LED nor given any reply to the notice. But however without any replacement the O.P.No.2 returned the defective LED in a repaired condition through his agent to the complainant by demanding an acknowledgement and since then the performance of the LED product is as usual on defective condition for which the complainant again contacted the O.P. No.2. Thereafter the O.P.No.2 send his service boy who took the said LED for further repair for which the complainant suffered mental agony coupled with financial loss time to time since from the date of purchase of the LED. Thereafter the complainant again issued a reminder notice dated 16.8.2016 to his previous notice to the O.P.No.1 & 2 with a request to replace a better product or new product in place of the defective LED. For this time also the O.P.No.1 & 2 though received the reminder of the complainant but remained silent without replacing the defective product of the complainant nor gives any reply to him. On 28.09.2016 the O.P.No.2 through his receptionist called the complainant over telephone to attend his office situated at Gandhinagar, 1st line with all necessary original documents i.e. the Guarantee card and receipts relating to earlier repairs made by the O.P.No.2. Accordingly on 29.09.2016 the complainant personally approached the O.P.No.2 at his chamber with all receipts and documents in original and handed over the same to the O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 after receiving the documents gave a proposal to the complainant by offering for replacement of the defective SAMSUNG LED which is already with the O.P.No.2 with one Videocon LED in place of SAMSUNG LED which is a defective product, to which the complainant refused to accept the offer of O.P.No.2 and requested the O.P.No.2 to replace the same product i.e. SAMSUNG LED and asked the O.P.No.2 to return all the original papers relating to the old product i.e. defective SAMSUNG LED. But the O.P.No.2 by giving an assurance that within two days the product will be replaced after discussing with their authorities and accordingly retained the defective LED and also all the documents relating to the LED and earlier repairs. The complainant received a letter from SAMSUNG Customer care, SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD. New Delhi through the Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. shop No.1, 7 Ground floor, Odisha Business centre, Unit-2, Rasulgarh square, Bhubaneswar by intimating the complainant that “Your work order dated 19.11.2016 in respect of LED bearing order No. UA32H5100ARMXL SL.NO. H01F3ZNF200293B” stating that there is a panel problem (E-line on screen) by giving an estimate of total sum of Rs.17,783.69 and asked the complainant to confirm the amount for causing the repair, instead of replacing the old defective LED by any of the O.Ps. Since the dates of purchase the product is a defective one even inspite of repeated approaches all the O.Ps acts negligently to replace the defective product causing serious loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to replace the defective SAMSUNG LED 32” with a new product or in alternative the O.Ps shall pay the purchase price of the product for Rs.36,900/-, compensation for Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony, litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interests of justice.
3. Despite notice issued by this Forum, the O.P.No.1 and 2 failed to appear on the date fixed as such they set exparte on dated 04.05.2017.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.3 filed written version through his advocate on 1.6.2017. It is stated that in this present case the complainant has purchased the Samsung LED TV from the O.P.No.1 on 04.05.2014 with a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. After purchase the complainant has enjoyed the LED TV till eight months. For the first time on 22.12.2014 the complainant has lodged allegation regarding the alleged TV before the Samsung Authorized service engineer, Berhampur (O.P.N o.2). Hence the service engineer of the O.P.No.2 verified the TV of the complainant and observed that the panel of the LED TV is going to be defect and immediately replaced the panel in warranty and handed over the said TV in OK condition to the complainant without any neglect in service. Thereafter for the 2nd time on 30.06.2015 the complainant has lodged his allegation regarding the audio of the alleged TV before the O.P.No.2, so the service engineer verified the TV and replaced the main PCB in out of warranty and handed over the said TV in OK condition to the complainant immediately without any deficiency in service. Again on 12.05.2015 the complainant has submitted his TV in off condition before the O.P.No.2 for repair. The service engineer of the O.P.No.2 repaired the alleged TV in off line with free of cost as respect to the complainant as he is a lawyer. In the meantime the complainant has issued a pleader notice to the O.P.No.1 & 2 on 24.05.2016 as demanded for replacement of the alleged TV and threatened to proceed in court of law against the O.P.No.1 & 2. Further in the month of August 2016 the complainant has alleged that a line appeared on the panel of the alleged TV. Hence the service engineer has received the TV and verified the same and observed that the picture was already clear but a line was appeared in the panel. So the engineer educated the matter to the complainant that “now the TV is running fine but a line appeared in the panel if you want to replace the panel in out of warranty period then you must be pay the cost of the panel which near about Rs.18,000/-“. But the complainant has neither given the consent to replace the panel in paid service nor he has received the TV which was possible to which, the alleged TV. Lastly he has filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps on 03.12.2016 only to tarnish the reputation of the O.Ps and to secure unlawful gains. The averments of the complaint petition are also wrong, baseless, false, misconceived, unfounded, fabricated, frivolous and concocted and hereby denied. Because the warranty conditions clearly refers for replacement of defective spare only not to replacement of the whole product. Hence the O.P.No.3 prayed to dismiss the case with heavy cost.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No.3 were present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments, and citation placed on the case record. In the instant case it reveals from the materials on record that the complainant purchased a LED (32H 5100) of SAMSUNG MODEL 32” bearing Model No. LED (32H 5100) for an amount of Rs.36,900/- vide Invoice No. 170 dated 4.5.2014 from the O.P.No.1, wherein the warranty period was “one” year. It also reveals that after expiry of the warranty period the complainant has repaired his LED TV on 30.06.2015 by paying Rs.5,458/- to O.P.No.2. During the warranty period the complainant’s LED TV became defective after using it for three months. As the defect was within the warranty period, as such it was repaired by the O.P. in free of cost. After expiry of warranty period the complainant has repaired his TV on 30.06.2015 by paying Rs.5458/- as there was no free service. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the O.Ps are liable within the warranty period i.e. one year from the dates of purchase of the said LED TV , but after expiry of the warranty period no liability can be fixed against the O.Ps for the terms and conditions of the warranty. So the defects found in the said LED TV of the complainant after 03.05.2015 (the last date of the warranty period) does not cover the terms and conditions of the warranty.
5. On foregoing discussion, it is clear evident that the O.Ps are not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
6. In the result, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 10th May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
