Orissa

Rayagada

CC/129/2021

Sri SN Padhy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Samsung Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__129_______/2021                                    Date.    18    .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri  Satya  Narayan  Padhi,, At : Brahmin  Street,Po /Dist:Rayagada, 765 001, (Odisha)  Cell  No.9437207370.                       …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager, L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,  Regd. Office- A wing (3^rd. floor, D-3, District Centre,  Saket, New  Delhi- 110017.

2.The Manager,  Jagannath Sales, Kapilash  Road, New  Colony, Rayagada.

.                                                                                               … Opposite parties.

For the  Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1:-Sri S.K.Mohanty, Advocate, Bhubaneswar

For the O.P No.2:- Set exparte.

                                                            ORDER.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non Replace  of  LG LED  TV   with a new one for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

          That  the complainant had  purchased a   LG LED  TV Model No. 55LH600J, Sl. No.609PLJK 163020  from the   O.P.  No.2  bearing  retail invoice  No. 4168  Dt. 29.6.2017  on payment  of consideration a sum of Rs.97,500/-  (copy  of retail invoice enclosed). That the complainant also  made extended warranty bearing Card  No. EWH2-2709980. That  the above  set  found defective  within the  extended  warranty period. The O.Ps  service personal are assured  to the complainant the  defects  of the above set automatically removed and will  be well function. But the above set not functioning well.  That the complainant is a Journalist  ofRayagada  District    and  T.V. is highly  essential   for  the complainant.   Further  the  complainant   is  facing a lot of problems  due to non running of  above   T.V. The  above sets  problems are  narrated to the service centre    but  till date the complainant has not received any response from the O.Ps. Hence this case for redressal of grievance of the complainant.  The complainant prays the commission  direct the O.Ps  to replace the   LED  with a new one with fresh  warranty and  such other  relief  as the District Commission deems fit and proper   for the best  interest  of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.PNo.1    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.1    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.1.   Hence the O.Ps prays the commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.P No.2.  neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  06 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps .  Observing lapses of around  5(five) months     for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act,  going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P No.2   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps  were    set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act,.

 

Heard  the case  and  arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

         FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, the complainant had purchased   a   LG LED  TV Model No. 55LH600J, Sl. No.609PLJK 163020  from the   O.P.  No.2  bearing  retail invoice  No. 4168  Dt. 29.6.2017  on payment  of consideration a sum of Rs.97,500/-  (copies   of the  tax  invoice is available    in the file  which is marked as Annexure-I).  Further   the complainant also  made 2 years  extended warranty bearing Card  No. EWH2-2709980 (copies of the  extended warranty  is available  in the file which is marked  as Annexure-2).

But unfortunately after delivery  with in few months the above  set found defective and not functioning  properly. The complainant complained the O.Ps  for necessary replacement  and the same  product is now available in the service centre of the O.P. situated at Bhubaneswar (copies of the job sheet is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-3).     The complainant further approached the O.Ps for replacement of the same but   till date no action has been taken  by the  O.Ps.  Hence  this  C.C. case.

           The complainant  has handed over the same defective T.V. to the service centre  of Bhubaneswar on Dt.28.4.2021  for replacement of the new one set with fresh warranty (copies of the job sheet is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-3).

The O.P.No.2 in their  written version contended  that  the complainant has availed  additional two years warranty on panel  which is activated after expiry of Ist. Year  warranty. After expiry of warranty period, the consumer is at  liberty to avail paid services  through  authorized service  centre or from  open market. In the present case  complaint alleged  TV was admittedly   purchase  on Dt. 29.6.2017 and one year warranty on it expires on 29.6.2018. Thereafter additional warranty for two years expires on 29.6.2020.   Admittedly no complaint lodged during Ist.  Year warranty  or durng  extended warranty  in force and no claim  for service remains pending during  warranty period.   Alleged TV was  installed on Dt. 29.6.2017  and demonstration  service  was   rendered  to full satisfaction of complaint.   Thereafter no complaint  is lodged prior  to 28.4.2021.. The alleged  LED was produced  before one of the authorized service  centre located at  Bhubaneswar, running its business in the name and style of “Miracle Services”.   Alleged LED was  submitted   for repair on Dt. 28.4.20221 on reported defect  of panel  broken.    On inspection it is detected that due to physical  damage the panel is  broken  for which  an estimate  for service was provided for repair.   The LED is physically damaged at complainant end and this is not an established case of manufacturing defect in the  LED within   warranty   in force.  With regard to direction  for replacement  of the LED with compensation   is disputed and denied.   This is  not an  established  case of defect in goods  or deficiency in service, and reliefs are claimed just on  imaginary  grounds.

The O.P  No.1   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

This  Commission observed  that as a matter of goodwill gesture, the  O.P No.1  as a big  company  in   India   should  replace the same  with a new  one as the complainant   is a journalist  and the  LED  is highly  essential    for him  and   investing  heavy  amount  to get service. 

It appears that the complainant  invested  a substantial amount a sum of Rs. One lakhs  and purchased a LED set  with an acceptation  to have the effective benefit of use of the product but in this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the article and deprived of  in using the above  set for such a long time and the defects were not removed  by the O.Ps .

            Hence, in our view the complainant has a right to claim replacement of the  above  LED. Hence it is ordered.

                                                                        O R D E R

            In  resultant the complaint petition  is allowed  against the O.Ps.

            i)The O.P No.1 (Manufacturer)   is  directed to replace the LG LED  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  O.P  No.2 (Dealer)  is  directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.1(manufacturer) for early compliance  of the above order.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order. Serve the order  to the  parties free of cost.

Dictated  and corrected  by me.

Pronounced   on    this 18^th.day    of        December ,2021.

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT