BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.68/2017

Date of filing: 18/07/2017

  Date of disposal: 04/05/2019

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S -

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) to replace the LED TV set and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards Mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation & any other reliefs etc.,

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

           It is case of the complainant that, the complainant has purchased Samsung LED TV set on dtd:05.09.2016 under invoice No.591 for Rs.21,500/- Model No.UA32FH4003RMXL SL.No.OA2F32MH518241 from OP.No.2 and it covers the warranty period of 1 year from the date of purchase and further after purchasing the said LED TV when it was taken home and switched on and operated at complainant’s house  it was noticed that, some big patches were screening on the LED screen and he picture/video or audio were not displayed properly and immediately the same has been informed to the OP.No.2 and he has informed to OP.No.3 to send technicians to complainant’s house, but OP.No.3 had not sent any technicians to attend to said LED set at complainant house. After that, he has repeatedly informing the OP.No.2 to get the said LED set repaired or replaced. The OP.No.3 after hearing the complaint from OP.No.2 had sent the technicians on 25.03.2017 and triad to rectify the major snag in the LED set, but they were not successful in doing so and had issued the Job Card Cum Technical Report that, Panel problem in one job/service card and panel problem and display problem in customer service record card and informed that, they will inform to OP.NO.1 for arranging a new panel board and as soon as the new panel board is received that will be replaced in the said LED set or new set of LED will be issued to the complainant.

          It is further contented that, they have not turned up to rectify the said LED set and again on 08.03.2017 few of the technicians came and attended the LED set, but they informed that, it was beyond the repairs and also given the photo of the said LED how the picture is displayed on the screen  and further the complainant informed to OP.No.2 for getting the said LED repaired or replaced, but neither the OP.No.1 nor other Ops bother about getting it repaired or replaced, on this count, it clearly show that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

Finally, the complainant got issued the legal notice through his counsel on dtd:08.05.2017 and  same has been duly served to the Ops and OP.No.2 has given evasive reply to the said notice. But, the OP.No.1 & 3 have neither attended nor replied the said legal notice. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponents by this Forum, the OP.No.1 has appear through his counsel and filed his objection and notice duly served upon the OP.No.2, but he has not appeared before this Forum. Hence, this Forum considered that, the OP.No.2 is placed Ex-parte and OP.No.3 notice returned as left not known. The Counsel of the complainant filed an application Under V rule 20 R/w Sec. 151 of C.P.C. and seeking permission to publish the notice/summons against the Op.No.3, in the daily Kannada news paper i.e. “Satya Kranti”. The said application has been allowed and it has been furnished in the said news paper. Despite, the Op.No.3 neither appeared nor contested. Hence, OP.No.3 is placed Ex-parte. 

The OP.No.1 strongly opposed the claim of the complainant, the OP submitted that, all contents of the para except purchase of the LED TV from this OP and remaining contents of the complaint paras are false, frivolous and vexatious and denied the allegation of the complainant.

It is further OP contended that, when the complainant has informed about the Display problem as well as informed about EDGE CRACK in his LED TV, this information is also mentioned in Customer Service Record card on dt:23.03.2017, the OP has sent the service engineer once again cross verify the issue by conducting physical inspection of product in customer place and will record actual fact noticed by them in customer service record card manually and will put their signature as well as take signature of the customer. In LED TV there is only 2 major part viz., Main Board and Panel and after physical verification, Service engineer recorded Display Prob & Panel Prob in the above referred service job sheet manually. At defect detected column it is clearly mentioned “Display Prob”. In repair report column it is clearly mentioned “Panel Prob” which is nothing but existence of problem in “TV Panel” and further the present case customer LED TV is physically damaged which is reflected in service job sheet dtd: 23.03.2017 and same is also acknowledged by the customer. Since LED TV is physically damaged, service request become out-warranty and customer cannot accept FOC replacement of part. As such service centre raised repair estimate to complete repair work. Since the customer refused to pay part cost and insist free replacement of panel, latter customer service request is cancelled. In fact the service centre raised repair estimate to conclude repair work, therefore the question of postponing it with one or the other reasons and intentionally avoiding to replace the LED TV does not arise at all and therefore there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

The OP submitted that, o 26.03.2017 service engineer visited the customer place and they have taken photograph of complainant LED TV. On perusal of photograph, it clearly reflects that, the customer LED TV is damaged in Corner Portion. In fact said damage happen not due to faulty workmanship or faulty material. On the other hand physical damage arose due to negligence act of customer and there is mention about Edge Crack and further the complainant has failed to produce warranty card to establish what is legal obligation of the company in case of physical damage to LED TV. For that, any physical damage does not construed within warranty and it will be treated as out-warranty and service request will be resolved on chargeable basis. Subject to availability of parts” and further it has been specifically mentioned in the warranty card under such cases the warranty will not be applicable i.e. in instant case “defects are caused by improper or reckless use which shall be determined by the company personnel”. In this case also the misuse has been detected and the defect has been caused due to physically damaged and which has been determined by the authorized personnel/technical. Hence, the Op has prayed for dismissed the complaint with costs.  

4.      In support of the claim in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced five documents, which are as under;

5.      On the other hand OP.No.1 has not filed his affidavit and affidavit of OP.No.1 is taken as nil and on behalf of this case the OP.No.1 has produced four documents which are as under;

Based on the above materials, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows;

1. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is negligent and deficiency of service on the part of Ops for not replace the LED TV or refund the costs?

2. What order?

6.     Answer to the above Points:-

1. Partly Affirmative.

2. As per final Order.

R E A S O N S:-

7.      Point No.1: After perusing the affidavit evidence of both parties, it is evident and admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased the LED TV from OP.No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.21,500/- vide cash receipt No.591 which is marked as Ex.P-1, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant is a consumer as is defined under the provisions of the C.P. Act 1986.

Further the case of the complainant is that, as per the warranty card issued by the OP.No.2 which is marked as
Ex.P-2, it clearly shows that, the 1 year warranty has been mentioned in the warranty card and from the date of the purchase of the said LED TV, when the complainant has operated it was noticed that, some big patches were screening on the LED Screen and the picture/video or audio were not displayed properly and immediately, the complainant intimated to the OP.No.2 regarding the same and OP.No.2 has intimated to the OP.No.3 service centre to rectified the same and on dtd: 25.03.2017 the OP.No.3 technician person check LED TV and issued job card cum technical report and clearly stated that, the defect is of panel problem in one job/service card and panel problem and display problem in customer service record card, the said document which are marked as EX.P-4 & 5, but he could not solve the problem till today, then complainant has issued legal notice to OP.No.1 to 3 on dtd: 08.05.2017 demanding the replacement of the said LED TV or refund the cost which is marked as Ex.P-6.

          The case of the Ops that, as per the terms and conditions of the warranty mentioned on its product and it cannot be held liable for claims falling outside the scopes of the warranty, for that proposition except OP-3 averments, there is no any material documents to show that, the problem in the LED TV is caused physically damaged or any damage caused by the complainant. The complainant has given complaint regarding the Display problem as well as Edge Crack problems and approached to the OP-3 through OP.No.2 and OP.No.3 service person checked and issued job sheet that, the defect detected in “Display prob” and in repair report column it is clearly mentioned that, “Panel Prob” which is nothing but existence of problem in “TV Panel” and stated that, physical damage does not construed within warranty and it will be treated as out-warranty and service request will be resolved only on chargeable basis, but whether it is correctly rectified or removed the defects in the LED TV screen or not? In our considered view that, initially the LED TV screen itself is having manufacturing defect and it clearly shows in our considered firm opinion that, the LED TV screen itself is in defective condition towards functioning when the complainant has purchased the said LED TV and the same has been informed to the OP.No.2 and OP.No.2 stated that, it is the duty of OP.No.1 & 3 who can deal it either repaired or replaced and the said problem has been informed to the OP.No.3, but till today the said problem has been not rectified by the Ops, thereby the act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and further the contention of the OP.No.1 that, the said LED TV screen got problem due to physical damage is not proved by the OP either producing the document or affidavit evidence.  Hence the OP.No.1 has failed to prove that, the said LED TV set was misused by the complainant.  

           Therefore, in our consider view that, the attitude of the Ops shows that, the Ops have not rectified the problem which is caused to the LED TV Screen. Under such circumstances, the said acts of the Ops are negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as not rectifying the LED TV, though the LED TV is under still warranty period i.e. within one year from the date of purchase, this fact is proved by the complainant by leading affidavit evidence and material documents of complainant.

Therefore, in our consider opinion that, the OPs have not rectifying or replacing the said LED TV Panel towards display problem of the said LED TV Screen. Due to this, the complainant has suffered lot of hardship. So, we are of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to allow the complaint, by directing the OPs to refund the cost or replace the said LED TV to the complainant, the defunct LED TV wherever kept be returned to manufacturer and further we directed to Ops are jointly and severally to pay the compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Accordingly, we answer this Point No.1 in partly affirmative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.

2. The OPs jointly and severally are directed to refund the cost or replace the said LED TV to the complainant, the defunct LED TV wherever kept be returned to manufacturer.

3. Further, the OPs jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/-  towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
4. The OPs jointly and severally granted 10 weeks to comply this order, failing to which the complainant shall entitle to get interest @ 6 % p.a. on cost of the LED TV from the date of this order till realization.
5. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  04^th day of May, 2019).