DATE OF DISPOSAL: 01.05.2019.
Mr. Karuna Kar Nayak, President:
The complainant Rabindra Behera has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a LED TV of Samsung having model No: UA32H5100ARMXL and serial No. H01F3ZEF902250A for Rs.36,690/- from the O.P.No.1 bearing retail invoice sl. No. 1697 dated 27.09.2014 and the blank warranty card with seal of the O.P.No.1 issued to the complainant. Soon after 3 months of purchase of the said TV, a single roll horizontally appeared on the screen and the complainant complained to the O.Ps and the O.P.No.2 replaced the panel board of the said TV. Just after 6 months, again another two number of line appeared on the screen and immediately, the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 and an engineer checked the said TV on 25.08.2015 and advised that the screen was damaged due to liquid logged and it will cost of Rs.16,000/-. But the said engineer did not choose to provide the address of the service centre to the complainant for further redressal of the complaint. When no alternative solution availed to the complainant in constraint, the son of the complainant Tatwadarai Behera complaint the matter through his email to the customer care of the Samsung company O.P.No.2 on 11.09.2015. The customer care of the O.P.No.2 registered the complaint bearing no: 8462715675 and replied to the quarries, the customer care of the O.P.No.2 without seen the product in person and instead of advise to contact the authorized service centre for replacement or repair the product as such there was running of warranty period, demanded a sum of Rs.14,706.74 allowing 25% discount on the engineer’s cost and the said offer was valid for 7 days from the date of communication i.e. from 17.09.2015. When nothing resolved, the complainant issued an advocate notice to the O.Ps but to no avail. The said two lines were appearing on screen when the complainant turned on the TV and it is creating disturbances while visualizing any program. Appearing of line on the screen deliberately clearly votes about manufacturing defects in the said TV. The complainant approached the O.P.No.2 to replace the same as per warranty card but to no avail. The O.P.No.1 duly acknowledged the said notice but did not choose to reply which speaks volumes against the veracity of the O.Ps. The complainant approached in person to the O.P. No.1 several times and over telephones to take necessary steps for replacement of the said product during warranty period as per promise on warranty. The complainant also approached by sending written but despite all his pleadings the O.Ps have not taken any steps to replace the goods or did not make any attempt to rectify defect in the goods which is indeed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under consumer protection Act. On account of aforesaid dereliction of duty and failure and neglect to provide appropriate service during warranty period by the O.Ps, the complainant incurred expenses towards redressal of grievances and suffered from mental agony and harassment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace the said manufacturing defective TV with new one having all the latest features or return the amount of Rs.36,690/-towards costs of the TV with 18% interest from the date of purchase, compensation of Rs.10,000/-towards agonies suffered by the complainant physically, mentally and financially in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P. No.1 neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version as such the O.P.No.1 set exparte on dated 17.10.2016.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 appeared and filed version through his advocate. It is stated as per the records of the answering O.Ps, the complainant herein had purchased a Samsung LED TV from the shop of the O.P.No.1 on 27.09.2014 for a consideration amount of Rs.26,690/- with an warranty period of one year from the date of purchase. The warranty period of said LED TV was expired on 26.09.2015. After purchase the complainant has watched the said LED TV comfortably and smoothly prior to date 02.08.2015. The complainant has registered the complaint vide service order No.4200544841 regarding defect of the Display (Panel) of the LED TV for which the Service Engineer of ASC, Berhampur has visited the house of the complainant on dated 02.09.2015 at about 4 P.M. and verified the LED TV of the complainant and observed that after supply current V-line was present on the display of said TV and detected that the panel of the TV was caused “Liquid Log” due to misuse. Thereafter the Service Engineer conformed to the complainant about the defect of the LED TV and educated the warranty conditions for the defect of liquid log. The warranty of the said TV was void for the defect of liquid log due to misuse/mishandle and also given the rough estimate towards the repair. After knowing all the facts of said defect, the complainant did not agree to replace the panel of the TV on payment, in out of warranty. Rather the complainant has forced to the service engineer to replace the same in free of cost but he expressed his inability for which the complainant did not put his signature on the service card and the service engineer returned back without repair. It is submitted that Mr. Tatwadarsi Behera, the son of the complainant has sent complaint to Samsung Customer Support Center on dated 11.09.2015 and as per direction of the O.P.No.2 the Service Engineer of the Authorized Service Centre, Berhampur has visited again to the house of the complainant and the photo copy and the status of the said LED TV of the complainant forwarded to the O.P.No.2. After getting all the details of the TV and considered the matter of the complainant, the O.P.No.2 has send the request letter on e-mail to Mr. Tatwadarshi Behera on dated 22.09.2015 at about 5.03 P.M. to provide 25% discount on repair estimate and requested to avail the offer within 7 days to that massage date. The respond of the complainant was zero after receive the e-mail letter dated 22.09.2015. The complainant did not move for any repair because the TV was running fine except the spot like V-line. There was no problem to watch the TV in the family of the complainant. After a long gap, without any cause of action against the O.Ps and after 6 months to expire of the warranty period of the LED TV, all of the sudden the complainant has filed this complaint petition with false, fabricated, unfounded, baseless, misconceived and frivolous pleas and knowingly avoided to make party to ASC, Berhampur only to tarnish the reputation of the O.P.No.2 and to get the unlawful gains from the O.Ps. In view of the above facts and circumstances the O.P.No.2 no way connected with this case. Neither the O.P.No.2 has committed any unfair trade practice nor any deficiency in service. Rather the complainant is unnecessary giving the mental agony and harassment to the O.P.N o.2 by filing this complaint in which has no cause of action arose against him. The O.P.No.2 has also loosed his valuable time and personality by filing this type of frivolous and vexatious complaint against the O.P.No.2 which is abuse of process of this Hon’ble Forum, for which the frivolous complaint is liable to be dismissed with penalty/cost under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. On the date of hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as O.P.No.2 at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. The complainant has purchased the Samsung LED TV from the shop of the O.P.No.1. It reveals from the complaint petition that the complainant’s LED TV became defective after 3 months of purchase. As a single roll horizontally appeared on the screen, the complainant lodged his complaint to the O.Ps and O.P.No.2 replaced the panel board, but the complainant fails to file any documentary evidence in support of his contention. Further, it also reveals that the complainant’s television became defective again after six months and two lines appeared on the screen as such the complainant lodged his complaint through e-mail and the Engineer of O.Ps checked the said television on 25.08.2015 and advised that the screen was damaged due to liquid logged and it will cost Rs.16,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant’s LED television was defective when the warranty is in force and the O.Ps have failed to file any documentary evidence such as expert report and details of liquid logged in the said LED television. In absence of any documentary evidence in support of liquid log and to demand cost for replacement of the screen/parts only assigning the technical grounds can not be accepted as it is not tenable in the eye of law.
6. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7. So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, we are not convinced that the complainant has repeatedly run after the O.P.No.1 for repairing or replacement of his defective LED television due to problem during warranty period but it is a fact that the O.Ps failed to take any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant. But the complainant is also entitled to get cost of litigation since he has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Forum and has incurred expenses attending the case. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award litigation cost in favour of the complainant.
8. In the result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to repair the LED television of the complainant on free of cost and shall give fresh warranty to the complainant from the date of repair of the said LED television or in alternative to refund the cost of LED television of Rs.36,690/- to the complainant. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Both O.Ps shall carry out the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum. The complainant is directed to return the defective LED television to the O.Ps. No order as to compensation. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 1st May 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
