THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.392/2011

Dated this the 22^nd  day of December 2014.

          ( Present:  Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB.                    :  President)                      

                         Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                        : Member

ORDER

By G.Yadunadhan, President:

          The case of the complainant is that complainant’s brother Mr.Praveen purchased a Samsung LCD Television Model LA 32C450EIZXN bearing seal no.NEAT 3ML B201044R from Dubai UAI) and the same was used for his household use at Koyilandy-Kozhikode-Kerala.  While so when the poor quality pictures were shown immediately the complainant informed the opposite party to carry out the defects. Opposite party conducted an inspection to the above said Television and later as per letter dtd.20.08.2011 they informed that the panel of the television is damaged physically and needs to be replaced for resolving complaint. As per their contention it is clear that the damage was occurred physically by means of third party interference.  But on the physical appearance of the television it clearly shows that no damage is done by the third party and the television still shows bad quality of pictures.  The fact being so opposite party demanded Rs.17,827/- towards the replacement change..  In fact as per the international warranty it is the bound duty of the opposite party to ratify the complaint with out any cost.  But opposite party demanding huge amount.  The act of the opposite party is violation of none performing his part as per international warranty. This caused the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Therefore opposite party No.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner by way of replace the television with a new one and also pay Rs.50,000/- toward compensation.

            Opposite party No.1 after serving notice entered in appearance and filed their version stating that on 26.07.2011 the petitioner complained about picture not clear at his Samsung LCD TV model No.LA32 C450ELXZN  when our service engineer visited and inspected the set, the LCD panel of the TV was found its display physically damaged and need to be replaced, since the damages do not cover warranty provisions. We had given the estimate Rs.7827.69 to repair the set by replacing the damaged panel. Though the outer safety panel of the set was seen intact, the damage to the display panel was visible to the naked eye. Since the set’s electrical circuit is not effected by this damage such conditions may give display of blurred/bad quality picture. Complainant produced document shows that the LCD having the International warranty. It is so the reported defects was not covered in the warranty. Clause 2 in page number of the International warranty. In view of that, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

Opposite party 2 and 3 after serving notice entered in appearance filed their version. Opposite party 2 is the manufacturer of television sets, cellular phone handsets and home appliances marketed under the brand name ‘SAMSUNG’. Complainant had complained to the 1^st opposite party about the poor picture quality of the LCD television with the model number and serial number shown in the complaint. There upon the service engineer of the opposite parties had been to the complainant’s house to inspect the television set. On inspection it was found that the LCD panel of the television set was found damaged beyond repair. It was damaged due to mishandling, not manufacturing defect. No deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Points for consideration

1. Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 & 2?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get any relief from first and second opposite party 1 to 3?  If so what is the relief and cost?

Complainants examined as PW1 Ext. A1 to A3 were marked. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence expert report marked as X1. Ext. A1, bill produced by the complainant shows the purchase of LCD TV. A2 shows the international warranty. A3 Power of Attorney, it is admitted by the opposite party 2. As per A2, the LCD TV having international warranty. The damage may be caused by external hitting of hard substance due to  negligence on the part of the complainant. There is no coverage of warranty. The expert report X1 clearly shows the breakage may due to the hitting of hard substance, expert has no assure that this may be manufacturing defect. Expert was not examined by the complainant, in totality of case Forum , by the available record and examination of PW1, cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party 1 to 3. Therefore no merit in this case. Complaint is liable to be dismissed

Pronounced in the open court this the         day of December 2014.

Date of filing 12.10.2011.

SD/-PRESIDENT                                                                               SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Bill issued by Carrefour dated 15/03/2011

A2. International Warranty issued by Opposite party

A3.  Power of Attorney in favour of complainant

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.Aiswarya(PA Holder)

X1. Report of Expert Commission

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT