ORDER

07.06.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. Brief facts of the present case are that complainant purchased a Toshiba 39 inches LED TV bearing model no. TOSHIBA- LED- 39P2305 for Rs.32,500/- on 28.04.2014 from OP1. It is stated that after about five months of the purchase the LED TV is not working and on 12.10.2014 when complainant was watching serial with family members all of a sudden a white shining patch appeared on the left side of the screen and some horizontal lines within few minutes and picture on the screen disappeared and LED TV stopped functioning.
2. It is stated that complainant approached OPs many times and made complaints. It is further stated that many times the engineer came and noted the fault/defect in their notebook but not rectified. It is stated that on 16.10.2014 complainant received a phone from OPs that repair charges will cost Rs.28,000/- whereas the total cost of LED TV is 32,500/- and under warranty period. It is stated that LED TV is having manufacturing defect which is not rectified permanently by OPs engineer. It is further stated that complainant and his whole family members are very much disturbed and now complainant is not interested to keep the said LED TV and wants Rs.32,500/- alongwith 18% interest per annum. It is stated that OPs act and omissions are constitute deficient service and unfair trace practice.
3. The complainant is seeking price of LED TV Rs.32,500/-, compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.11,000/-.
4. OP1 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that complainant has not approached the Hon’ble court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is stated that OP1 is a dealer and in case complaint is received from the consumer than every dealer informed the manufacturing company who has right to check and remove the defect. It is further stated that OP1 sent the complaint to OP2 of the complainant. It is further stated that complaint has not been verified nor supported by any affidavit as per law, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
5. On merit all the allegations are denied. It is stated that OP2 is a service center and OP3 is the manufacturer of the LED TV. It is stated that engineer of OP3 visited the premises of the complainant and found that the screen was broken and engineer claimed the bill for the damaged part but complainant declined to pay. It is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
6. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
7. As per record OP2 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 04.12.2018.
8. OP3 filed WS and taken preliminary objection that complainant has breached and violated  the fundamental and material terms and conditions of the warranty of the product resulting into dust and proper repudiation of the claim by the TIPL, therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that TIPS’s liability strictly lies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty provided on the LED TV and cannot be held liable for any claims falling outside the scope  of warranty. It is stated that in terms of warranty TIPL is obliged to repair or replace the field replaceable unit (FRU) with a new or qualified use FRU, in the occurrence of any failures or defect covered under the warranty during the period of warranty. It is stated that in the present case the defect arises out of the mishandling of the LED TV by complainant himself and there is no manufacturing defect which is covered under warranty.
9. It is stated that complainant had purchased Toshiba LED TV bearing model no.39P2305ZE, serial no. E13X15H01210C1 on 28.04.2014 from OP1 and guarantee period of was of three years which ends on 27.04.2017. It is further stated that warranty covers only repairs of certain types of defect in the LED TV which are defects arising out of relating to manufacturing of the product and not any defect that may arise due to mishandling of the product. It is further stated that as per complainant on 12.10.2014after five months a white shining patch alongwith some horizontal and vertical lines appeared on the left side of the screen of the LED TV. It is stated that the said white patch on the screen was a crack resulting from the panel being broken and such crack cannot develop in the product on its own unless the said  product has been mishandled. It is stated that complainant himself is guilty of causing substantial damage  to the product. It is further stated that TIPL is correct in repudiating the claim of the complainant within warranty period.
10. It is stated that on 14.10.2014 itself the complainant was made aware of the actual position with regard to the LED TV by the engineer of TIPL’s authorized service center i.e OP2 named in the complaint, who clearly explained to the complainant that such damage was not covered by the warranty and offered to repair the LED TV on paid basis, but complainant refused to admit the damaged arose due to his acts and also did not sign the job sheet and filed the present complaint on 20.10.2014. It is further stated that on 02.12.2014 the complaint of complainant was promptly dealt by OP2 and an engineer was sent to complainant residence on the same day and complainant permitted the service engineer to take photographs of the LED TV for assessment of physical damage and also wrote his complaint on the job sheet. It is stated that the engineer reiterated that the panel of the LED TV was broken due to complainants mishandling and same was not a manufacturing defect, therefore, not covered under warranty. The OP3 filed on record photographs and job sheet dated 02.12.2014.
11. It is stated that complainant has utterly failed to take proper care and reasonable steps to safeguard the LED TV from damage caused to it and the acts  and omissions on the part of complainant amounts to serious breach of the terms and conditions of the warranty of the product leading to justifiable repudiation of claim by TIPL, therefore, TIPL cannot be held responsible  for  any loss or  deficiency of service. The OP referred the judgment of Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide express courier division of air freight ltd. AIR 1996 SC 2501. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated.
13. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP3 and denied all the allegations made in the WS and reiterated contents of complaint.
14. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint.
15. As  per record OP1 has not filed evidence.
16. OP3 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Nilesh Sharma Senior Manager and reiterated contents  of WS. OP3 relied on copy of warranty terms Ex.OP3/1 and photograph of LED TV and the job sheet dated 02.12.2014 Ex.OP3/2.
17. Written arguments filed by complainant, OP1 and OP3.
18. We have heard Sh. D.K Sinha counsel for complainant and Sh. Jayant Rastogi counsel for OP1. Neither AR for OP3 nor counsel addressed oral arguments despite several opportunities. We have gone through the written arguments filed by OP3 and perused the entire record.

19. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased a LED TV Toshiba 39 inch having model no.3932305 for Rs.32,500/- on 28.04.2014. Complainant alleged that on 12.10.2014 suddenly a white shining patch appeared on the left side of the screen and some horizontal lines and within few minutes the picture on the screen was disappeared and Led TV stopped functioning. The complainant further alleged that on complaint engineer visited and on 16.10.2014 a telephone received whereby repair charges of Rs.28,000/- were conveyed, however the TV is under warranty. According to OP when the engineer of OP3 visited the premises of the complainant found that screen of the LED TV was broken and claimed the bill for the damaged part but complainant declined. The manufacturer company OP3 has taken the stand that as per terms and conditions of warranty the manufacturer is under legal obligation to repair or replace the field replaceable unit with a new or qualified used FRU, however in the present case the defect has been arisen due to mishandling of the LED TV which is not a manufacturing defect or a defect covered under the warranty. The warranty documents filed on record. We have gone through the same. As per warranty card the warranty period ends on 27.04.2017. As per OP the screen was cracked resulting from the panel being broken which is not covered under the warranty given by the manufacturing company. OP  filed on record the coloured photograph of the LED TV specifically showing a broken screen. It is pertinent to mention here that as per job card dated 02.12.2014 the engineer of manufacturing company visited the complainant house and given the report that panel has been broken. The complainant also given his observation and allegation. We have gone through the photographs and job sheets  filed on record. The photographs clearly established that the screen of the LED TV is broken and there is white shining patch of horizontal lines appeared to be shown in photographs. The complainant failed to establish that there is manufacturing defect in the LED TV. The OP1 to 3 established that the LED TV panel has been broken and the repair of same is not  covered within the terms and conditions of the warranty given by OP3 Toshiba Company.
20. On the basis of above observations and discussion, complainant failed to establish deficiency of service against OP1 to 3. Hence, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
21. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  07.06.2024.

    SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER