DR. SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by learned District Forum, Cuttack in C. C. no. 173 of 2014.
Appellant was complainant whereas respondent nos. 1 to 5 representing Reliance Retail Limited was O.P. no. 1 to 5.
Case of complainant is that he had purchased one Reliance Reconnect LED TV bearing model no. Reconnect LED G 3901 from O.P. no.5 on payment of Rs.32,900/- towards consideration through cheque on 23.11.2013. O.P. no.5 delivered the TV on 29.11.2013. It was alleged that O.P. no. 5 delayed in delivering the TV after receiving full consideration amount. On 29.11.2013 TV was installed. On the day of installation complainant was astonished to find that the TV had manufacturing defect. Complainant immediately informed O.Ps. technician. They checked and gave assurance that it is a new product; the defect will be rectified automatically. But the defect persisted. It was alleged that after a lapse of 25 days O.Ps. technician demanded Rs.25,000/- towards repair which is illogical and arbitrary. Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Forum below claiming cost of TV along with compensation and cost to the tune of Rs.1,07,290/-.
Challenging the maintainability of complaint, O.Ps. contended that it is not liable for replacement under the condition of warranty, as there is no expert opinion filed by complainant. For the first time on 17.5.2014 complainant reported about the problem on 19.5.2014 the engineers of O.P. visited the site and resolved the problem with satisfaction of complainant. On 8.6.2014 complainant reported further problem of TV set. On inspection it revealed that LCD panel has got physically damaged due to improper use. On 19.5.2014 they did not notice any damage. It was concluded that the TV panel damage was due to negligent act of complainant which does not attribute to manufacturing defect. As the defect was not covering the warranty, complainant was advised to bear the cost. But complainant resorted to litigation.
Challenging the dismissal order of the District Forum, complainant filed the present appeal on the ground that learned Forum has failed to evaluate the facts and merits of the case and mechanically dismissed the case.
We heard Mr. P. K. Mishra, learned counsel for appellant. None appears on behalf of respondent on call.
Admittedly, appellant had purchased one TV set from respondent no.5 on payment of Rs.32,990/- on 23.11.2013 through cheque. The same was delivered on 29.11.2013. It was alleged that the TV showed manufacturing defect during the warranty period of 2 years.
On perusal of records it is evident from warranty card that the product is warranted against all manufacturing defects. From letter dated 5.8.2014 of respondent/O.P. no.5 it is clear that appellant had lodged first complaint on 17.5.2014 which was resolved by their technician on 19.5.2014. Further on 8.6.2014 appellant had registered another complaint. On receiving such complaint, the engineer attended and found the damage to be physical and not pertaining to manufacturing defect. Appellant was advised to bear the cost of spares to be replaced for making the TV operative. Appellant did not agree to it.
It is seen that the TV was purchased on 23.11.2013 and installed on 29.11.2013. Appellant complained on 17.5.2014 i.e. after using the TV for more that 5 months without any complaint. It shows that TV was running smoothly without any defect. As there is no material on record to prove manufacturing defect, it cannot be concluded that there was any manufacturing defect.
Further it is clear from the findings of learned District Forum that the nature of defect was not manufacturing defect. We are of considered opinion that learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.
In view of the above, we confirm the impugned order.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
