DATE OF FILING: 02.12.2016

                    DATE OF DISPOSAL: 17.05.2018

Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.  

               The complainant  P.Narasingh Patro has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service 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 had purchased a Samsung LED Television bearing No. UA- 32EH 4003-22 8332NF-510390 (01) for Rs.26,000/-dated 03.09.2014 and money receipt being sanctioned vide its Chillan/Bill No. 1903 (Tin-21401904616 and the period of warranty being given twelve months  as per the terms and conditions thereof. During the period of his initially ailments and constantly taking medicines, X-ray and other examinations as advised by the local Hospital and reports, and ultimately the complainant was being taken to Visakhapatnam, King George Hospital Trauma Care Lab,  in the month of June 2015, during that crucial period the aforesaid “SAMSUNG LED” dated 9.7.2014 was damaged and the entire screen/picture etc. severely invisible and absolutely no entertainment even the inmates of the dwelling house as situated at Bejipur Big street, Berhampur and immediately informed by his family members and after returning from the Hospital (King George) Vizag  personally approached the local dealer the O.P.No.1 and physically shown it (Samsung LED) by appraising the detail facts in brief as he was totally suffering and taking his constant medical treatment during the third week of the June 2015 at Vizag (A.P.). The O.P.No.1 rather suggested him to send the legal notice to the higher authorities of M/s Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 110 044 and other branch service centre etc. Accordingly a legal notice being submitted through his lawyer dated 15.11.2015 by Registered post with AD endorsing a similar copies to other O.Ps 2&3 by Registered post with AD and after acknowledging the same, the O.P.No.1 rather phoned his lawyer to go for the amicable settlement and simply requested the complainant lawyer to furnish the cell number of the complainant to have a personal discussion and accordingly the O.P.No.1 rightly had a thorough personal discussion to either replace a new one or to repair even by replacing all required spare parts at their own costs and risk and not to go for the court of law for dragging them. After their sitting and passing out a resolution within a week but the O.Ps rather miserably failed to honour their personal discussions and remained totally silent, again served the legal notices in continuation of his previous legal notices, acknowledged but paid deaf ear in a most negligently.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps  to pay the costs of the Samsung LED of Rs.26,000/-, compensation for mental agony Rs.50,000/- and towards cost of Rs.20,000/- in the best interest of justice.

               3. Despite notice issued by this Forum, the O.P.No.2 failed to put his appearance and as a result he was proceeded exparte on dated 1.06.2017.

               4. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 & 3 filed written version through his advocates. It is stated that this consumer complaint case is not maintainable both in eye of law as well as in record and document and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complaint case is not maintainable since it is based upon false, frivolous and vexatious pleas.  The complainant has not adduced any material particulars so as the LED TV of the complainant has defect or regarding the mental agony and harassment suffered by him. The complaint case is not maintainable as the complainant has not mentioned any cause of action arose to file the present complaints against the O.Ps, thereby the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. The complaint petition is not maintainable as no affidavit has supported to this complaint petition filed by the complainant and thus the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complaint case is not maintainable since the facts of the complaint petition and the facts of the pleader notice are not corroborated. Hence, it is presumed that all are the afterthought facts submitted by the complainant only to tarnish the reputation of the answering O.Ps and also to secure illegal and unlawful gains from the O.P.No.3.  Thereby the complaint case is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In the present case, the complainant has purchased the Samsung LED TV from the O.P.No.2 on 09.07.2014 with one year warranty from the dates of purchase. Since the date of purchase the complainant and his family members have watched/enjoyed the LED TV smoothly and continuously with no allegation. But all of sudden the O.P.No.1 & 3 have received the legal notice dated 04.07.2016from the advocate of the complainant. But they could not understand the reason of the pleader notice sent by the complainant. They have neither any call history nor service history regarding the LED TV of the complainant in online nor any status before the O.P.No.3 about the complainant’s LED TV. Also the answering O.P.No.1 could not got understanding any fact from the legal notice dated 04.07.2016 which is first and last legal notice served by the advocate of the complainant. From the above facts it is clearly reflected that, the warranty period of the LED TV of the complainant was expired on 08.07.2015. After the date 08.07.2015 if any type of defect arose in said LED TV of the complainant then he must repair the same on payment of the repaired cost i.e. in out of warranty but not in warranty. As per the statement of the complainant he approached the dealer Sahil Electronics on dated 06.11.2015 for repair of his damaged TV. But the Sahil Electronics is not the Authorized service provider after sale. The complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of C.P.Act for such a frivolous and vexatious complaint petition. The complainant has confused the answering of O.Ps. Neither the O.P.No.1 & 3 have received any advocate notice prior to the notice dated 04.07.2016 nor any point of time the o.P.No.1 phoned and suggested for amicable settlement. All the statements of the complainant are balled lie. Hence it is clear that the LED TV of the complainant may be defect near about the date of prior to notice dated 04.07.2016. The complainant has cunningly tried to manage a false story to avoid the out warranty period of his LED TV. Thus the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed on this reason only. The averments of the complaint petition are wrong and hereby denied the complaint has neither proved and nor provided any document regarding the date of damage/defect of his aforesaid LED TV. Further the law is well settled that burden of proof lies with the complainant he has to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the above facts and circumstances it is clearly that the complainant has filed this false, frivolous and fabricated case in oblique motive and malafide intention without getting any mental agony and harassment on behalf of the O.Ps and only to tarnish the reputation of the O.p.No.1 and to secure illegal and unlawful gains from the O.Ps. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 3 prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost.

               5. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and O.P.No.1 & 3 are present.  We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments, and citation placed on the case records. The complainant purchased Samsung LED TV on dated 09.07.2014 and the warranty period of the said LED TV of the complainant was expired on 08.07.2015.  After 08.07.2015 if any type of defect arose in said LED TV of the complainant then he must repair the same on payment of the repaired cost i.e. in out of warranty but not in warranty. It is pertinent to mention here that the O.Ps are liable within the warranty period i.e. one year from the date of purchase of the said Samsung LED TV, but after expiry of the warranty period no liability can be fixed against the O.Ps for the terms and conditions of the warranty. So the defects found in the said LED TV of the complainant after 08.07.2015 (the last date of the warranty period) does not cover the terms and conditions of the warranty.

   5. On foregoing discussion, it is clear evident that the O.Ps are not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant.  Hence in our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

               6. In the result, the complainant’s case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost.

               The order is pronounced on this day of 17th May 2018 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