For Complainant         :           Self.

For Op No.1& 2           :           None

For OP No.3                 :           Sri Subhendra Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & associates

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LG LED 32” TV Model No.32LN5110ATR Sl. No.306PLF5073547 from OP.1 vide Retail Invoice No.1120 dt.20.07.2013 for Rs.25, 000/- with one year warranty and Picture Tube is for 5 years warranty.  It is submitted that after a couple of days of its purchase, the complainant noticed some black and white dots appeared in the TV screen and on contact, the OP.1 suggested that the dots will be disappeared from the screen after some days of use.  After 2 months the complainant noticed that the pictures were not coming clearly and again he lodged complaint with OP.1, who assured that the defect will be rectified by Company technician.  It is further submitted that as the Company technician did not come, the complainant requested the OP.1 to replace the TV with a new one but the OP.1 did not agree and advised the complainant to change the cable wire.  In spite of changing cable wire, the defect could not be removed and hence the complainant reported the fact to Ops 1 & 2 but they did not care to take any action.  It is also submitted that during June, 2014 Company technician came and inspected the TV and assured to come back with spare parts but did not turn up.  On 15.5.2016 the TV did not function and the fact was intimated to OP.2 who inspected the TV and demanded Rs.14, 000/- towards replacement of picture tube.  The complainant submitted that knowing manufacturing defect in the TV from the day one, the Ops did not take care after repeated complaints and thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the TV with a new one or to refund Rs.25, 000/- towards cost of the TV with interest @ 18% p.a. from 20.07.2013 and to pay Rs.13, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.  The OP No.3 filed counter admitting the sale of alleged TV to the complainant through OP.1-dealer in view of the retail invoice issued by OP.1 and denied the allegation regarding detection of defect in the TV within couple of days of installation, in absence of any materials on record.  The OP.3 denied any complaint received from the complainant with regard to any defect in TV within warranty period.  The OP.3 contended that picture quality of a TV depends upon source of signal utilised for viewing the TV and the complainant admitted that the TV never stopped running in the present case and the alleged defect in the TV is due to damage of panel and in such a case, the TV will be dead.  Denying inspection of the TV by authorised service person during June, 2014, the OP admitted that on 15.5.2016 the defect in the TV was detected by ASC and found that the panel of the TV was broken for which the complainant was suggested to avail paid service as it was not within the warranty period and the complainant denied any paid service.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed copy of retail invoice along with affidavit in support of his case.  The OP.3 also filed affidavit.

4.                     In this case purchase of LG LED 32” TV Model No.32LN5110ATR Sl. No.306PLF5073547 from OP.1 vide Retail Invoice No.1120 dt.20.07.2013 for Rs.25, 000/- with one year warranty is a fact in view of copy of retail invoice filed by the complainant which is on record.  The complainant stated that within couple of days of purchase of TV it started giving defect for which he approached OP.1 and the OP.1 gave him an impression that the defect would be removed automatically since the TV is a new one.  As the defect did not remove, he again contacted OP.1 and the OP.1 contacted ASC who came during June, 2014 but returned without repairing the TV and again came on 15.05.2016 with demand of Rs.14, 000/- to change the picture tube but the complainant did not agree.  On the other hand the OP.3 stated that the defect in the TV came to their knowledge on 15.5.2016 and the technician of the Company found that the Panel of the TV was broken and hence the complainant was requested paid service but the request was denied by the complainant.  The complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the TV.

5.                     From the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues emerge importance for consideration in order to come to a definite conclusion in this case. (1) Whether the defect in the TV was noticed within couple of days of its purchase and the complainant had lodged any complaint before the ASC or the Company? (2) Whether the TV in question had got any problem or manufacturing defect within the warranty period? (3) Whether the OP(s) committed any deficiency in service and (4) if so, as to what relief?

6.                     While deciding Issue No.1 it is noticed that according to the complainant, he noticed some black and white dots appeared in the TV screen and he approached OP.1 and lodged a complaint before him.  The complainant knows that the OP.1 is a dealer.  It can neither rectify the defect nor replace the TV with a new one.  If any complaint comes to him, it is his duty to forward the same to the ASC or to provide the communication address of the ASC and the duty of the complainant is to take follow up of the matter to get the reference of the complaint so lodged.  As the complainant has not furnished any reference number of the complaint in his complaint petition, it cannot be easily believed that the TV in question became defective within couple of days of its purchase.  On the other hand, the OP.3 stated that no such complaint has been received by their ASC.  Further the complainant stated that after 2 months he found that the pictures in the TV are not coming clearly and he again lodged complaint with OP.1.  Instead of going to OP.1, in our opinion, the complainant could have directly approached the OP.2 who is the ASC of the Company at Jeypore town and registered complaint but the complainant did not do so.  Further the complainant stated that the fact was reported to OP.2 but in support of his contention he has not adduced any evidence.  The contention of the complainant that ASC personnel came to the house of the complainant during June, 2014 is also not supported by service job sheet or any kind of evidence.  In view of the above facts, it can be concluded that there is no evidence on record regarding defects noticed in the TV within a couple of days of its purchase and the complainant had reported the facts to Ops. 1 & 2.  This issue goes in favour of the Ops.

7.                     Issue No.2 is whether the alleged TV has got any defect or defect of manufacturing nature during warranty period.  The complainant stated that on 15.5.2016 the TV did not function and on contact, the OP.2 inspected the TV and demanded Rs.14, 000/- to replace the picture tube of the TV.  The OP.3 in its counter also admitted that for the first time the ASC inspected the TV of the complainant and detected that the alleged TV is out of warranty and its panel is broken for which the complainant was to avail paid service to which he denied.  The OP.3 stated that in case of damage of panel, the TV will be dead.

8.                     In this case, the TV in question was purchased on 20.07.2013 and warranty on it expired on 20.07.2014.  It is further seen that on 15.5.2016, as both the parties admitted, a complaint is lodged alleging set dead.  On inspection by OP.2, it is found that the Panel of the TV is broken due to mishandling or accident and it requires replacement.  As the TV is out of warranty, the OP.2 requested the complainant for paid service but the complainant did not agree stating that the damage occurred due to negligence of the Ops.  It is further noticed that the complainant refused to put his signature on the job card prepared by OP.2 on 15.5.2016.  A bare allegation of negligence will not do and it must be supported by cogent evidence.

9.                     The complainant in this case pleaded manufacturing defect in the TV without support of any material on record.  The OP.2 on inspection of TV found that the panel of the TV is broken due to mishandling or accident, which in our opinion is not a defect of manufacturing nature.  Even damage of panel is not covered under warranty terms since it was noticed after warranty period and the complainant has also denied any paid service.  Burden of proof of manufacturing defect exclusively lies on the complainant.  No technical evidence is adduced by the complainant to substantiate his allegations and thus the complainant could not be said to have proved his case regarding manufacturing defect in the TV within warranty period.  Further it is seen that no complaint is pending before the Ops regarding defect in the TV and thus we found neither any manufacturing defect in the TV nor any deficiency in service committed by any of the Ops.

10.                   In the above premises, we found no merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)