Date of Filling      :  22.01.2015.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  25.05.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.12/2015

(Dated this Wednesday the 25^th day of May 2016)

C. Sambandan,

No.3, 9^th Lane, K.K. Road,

Venkatapuram,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 053.                                                                   … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1. The Head Office,

    Represented by its CEO /  Manager,

    Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,

    2^nd 3^rd 4^th Floor Tower C,

    VIPUL TECH SQUARE,

    OLD GOLF COURSE ROAD,

    GURGAON,

    HARYANA - 122 002.

2. The Regional Office,

    Represented by its Manager,

    No.24, Rajasekaran Stret,

    Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

    Mylapore,

    Chennai - 600 004.

3. The Authorised Samsung Service Centre,

    T.V.S. Electronics Limited,

    Tower 1, Bascon Maeru Towers,

    Ground Floor, No.82/84/86,

    Kodambakkam High Road,

    Chennai - 600 034.

4. M/s. Surya Stores,

    Represented by its Manager,

    No.22, K.K. Road,

    Venkatapuram,

    Chennai - 600 053.                                                            … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 28.04.2016 in the presence of the Complainant, M/s. V.V. Giridhar, Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party and the 2 to 4 Opposite parties are Set Ex-parte for non appearance and having perused the documents, evidences and written arguments of the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite party side, this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 to 4 opposite parties for seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- and against the 3^rd opposite party to return  the sum of Rs.169/- along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant with cost of Advocate notice Rs.2,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-.

The brief averments of the complaint is briefly as follows:-

The complainant had purchased a Samsung Smart T.V. having Model No.UA32F5500 ARLXL on 10.07.2013 bearing Serial No.MR2P3PBD500658B from a shop named as Surya Stores for Rs.38,100/- who is arrayed as a 4^th opposite party.  The complainant availed loan from M/s. Sri Ram Chit Funds at Ambattur.  The 4^th opposite party is selling the Samsung E.V. in bulk orders who has failed to reveal the details about his Samsung dealership inspite of several requests made.  Immediately after the purchase of the T.V. set, it developed defects.  The repair was carried during the warranty period very often.  The warranty was unfilled and the conditions in the warranty is laid only to cheat the customers.  The alphabetic letters are very minute, which cannot be read by naked eyes and even on using a magnifying glass.  The T.V. had an inherent defect.  The 1^st opposite party of this petition has manufactured a poor quality of T.V. which is unfair and restrictive trade practice.  The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties of this complaint are stringent followers of the 1^st opposite party and they sell their defective products with catchy advertisements and exploit the innocent consumers.

2.       The 1 to 3 opposite parties have supplied a faulty LED panel and the T.V. developed trouble and it was not useful to the complainant.  Three months after the purchase of the said T.V. on 14.11.2013 the problems crept in, some of the programmes were found missing and on the complaint launched by the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party has rectified the mistake after consuming a time of nearly 48 hours.  Thereafter, the problem was intermittent in the T.V.   The T.V. had developed a snag.  The complaint was over looked on 21.12.2013, one Mr. Srinivasan attended a complaint.  On 04.11.2014, while watching T.V. in the afternoon, all of a sudden, the picture was vanished and only the audio was audible.  The T.V. became useless and unfit to enjoy.   For the past 3 months the T.V. set is in the house and no service is being enjoyed by the complainant even after purchasing the same at a cost of Rs.38,100/-.  Now it is lying defective T.V. set is practically of no use because of the negligent and deficient manner of service and  for unfair trade practice of all the opposite parties.  The 4^th opposite party has not checked the quality of the T.V. before selling it to people. 

3.       On 04.11.2014, immediately the complainant contacted the customer care number and informed the fault regarding the T.V. on 05.11.2014 one person by name Mr. Periyasamy inspected the T.V. and gave his opinion in a very vague manner.  He was an Engineer for TVS Electronics Ltd. bearing engineering code 8486061103.  He issued a cash receipt bearing for a sum of Rs.169/-.  Also an estimation was given by the 3^rd opposite party.  The total estimation amount was Rs.17,891/-.  It was detected that the LED PANEL and SMPS have to be replaced.  The replacement charge has to be borne only by the 3^rd opposite party.

4.       The complainant exhausted in making call to the toll-free number regarding the faulty T.V.  On 13.11.2014, one Mr. Paras Kumar, the Executive Engineer contacted the complainant over the phone and demanded a sum of Rs.14,000/- to repair the T.V. Set.  He told that though the estimate was Rs.17,891/- as an offer he would charge Rs.14,000/- and the complainant declined to a sum of Rs.14,000/-.  Though the complainant had taken essential steps for my remedy through letters dated 10.11.2014 and 14.11.2014 to all the essential members but all are ended in vain.  The attitude of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and negligence in service.  Though the legal notice sent to the opposite parties and the same was received by them, whereas no rectification nor response is carried out.  Hence this complaint.

5.       The contention of written version of the 1^st opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party denies each and every averments made by the complainant as false.  It is not correct to say that the 1^st opposite party had manufactured a poor quality of Television.  There is no defect in the T.V Set purchased by the complainant and the same was in order.  Therefore, the allegations made by the complainant is not maintainable. The alleged problems which arose on 14.11.2013 is not correct and the complainant is making such complaint for the purpose of the above case without any material in support of the same.   Even as per the complainant’s averment one Mr. Srinivasan had attended the above service complaint who is not an authorized service agent or deputed by the opposite parties and any service rendered by the 3^rd opposite party other than authorize service centre would render the warranty invalid as it is in the violations of the warranty conditions.

6.       The 1^st opposite party states that they received the service complaint on 04.11.2014 only and immediately on 05.11.2014, the Service Engineer had attended the service complaint and found that the LED Panel and SMPS of the T.V. got damaged due to short circuit on the same has to be replaced.    Further on the same day, an estimation was given to the complainant wherein it was informed that approximately the above two parts would cost of Rs.17,891/- which has to be paid by the complainant for providing the service.  Further as the service call was attended a sum of Rs.169/- was charged as the service complaint was received by the opposite party beyond the warranty.  However, the complainant had refused to handover the T.V. Set for service and he asked for replacement of the T.V. Set with a new one.  There is no default or deficiency in service on the T.V. set purchased by the complainant is perfectly in order further the LED panel and SMPS got damaged due to the short circuit further the warranty period for the said T.V. set was over therefore, the opposite party is not liable to replace the T.V. Set as claimed by the complainant. 

7.       There is no cause of action to the above complaint and further there is no manufacturing defect in the T.V. set purchased by the complainant.  Further the opposite party is entitled to charge for the service calls attended by them which is beyond  the warranty period, further the opposite party is also entitled to charge for the spare parts to be replace after the expiry of the warranty period and the opposite party was always ready and willing to rectify the defects in the T.V purchased by the complainant on payment of the necessary charges.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable with cost u/s 26 of Consumer Protection Act.

8.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A13 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 1^st opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and no document is filed  on his side.

9.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

10.     Written arguments have been filed on the side of the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.   Oral arguments adduced on the side of the opposite party.  The complainant has not come forward for adducing oral arguments inspite of sufficient time was given and hence it is closed.

11.     Point no.1:-

Regarding the allegations made in the complaint, on perusal of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the averments of the complaint, it is learnt that the complainant had purchased the Samsung Smart T.V. having model no.UA32F5500 ARLXL for Rs.38,100/- on 10.07.2013 from the 4^th opposite party through Ex.A1, cash bill along with the user manual and the warranty card.  The complainant had availed loan from M/s. Sri Ram Chit Funds, Ambattur.  It  is further stated that the warranty was unfilled and the alphabetic letters are very minuet  which can not be read by naked eyes and even by using a magnifying glass and  such conditions in the warranty is laid only to cheat the customers which is unfair restrictive trade practice.

12.     Further, it is learnt that on 14.11.2013 the problem crept in and  some of the programmes were found missing and immediately, the complainant launched a complaint and the said mistake was rectified after consuming a time of 48 hours.  And therefore, after the T.V. had developed a snag and the complaint was overlooked on 21.12.2013, one Mr. Srinivasan attended the complaint.  Then on 04.11.2014, while watching the T.V. in the afternoon, all of a sudden the picture was vanished and only the audio was audible.   Whereas, the video was fainted and blurred and thereby, the TV became useless and unfit to enjoy. 

13.     Immediately, the complainant contacted the customer care and informed the fault regarding the T.V. on 05.11.2014 one person by name Mr. Periyasamy, Engineer for TVS Electronics Ltd. inspected the TV and gave his opinion and issued a cash receipt for the same of Rs.169/-.  The Tax Invoice cum cash receipt is marked as Ex.A2.  The estimation for replacement of the spare parts given by the 3^rd opposite party is Rs.17,891/- is marked as Ex.A3.  The complainant had refused to pay the said amount since there is no fault on him  and infact, it is purely due to manufacturing defects.  Therefore, the complainant had sent Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6, letters to the 4^th, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Again Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 were sent to the 2^nd  opposite party.   In spite of the receipt of the same by the opposite parties they neither replied nor come forward to rectify the defects.  So, the complainant had issued Ex.A10, legal notice to the 1 to 4 opposite parties and the acknowledgement cards for receipt of the same by the 2  to 4 opposite parties are marked as Ex.A11 to Ex.A13.   It is further stated that even on receipt of Ex.A10 legal notice, the opposite parties did not give any response which amounts to deficiency in service.

 14.    On the other hand, on seeing the written version of the opposite party it is stated that no such service complaint, received by them with regard to the alleged problems which arises on 14.11.2013 and infact there is no material record in support of the same and the mentioning of one Mr. Srinivasan, who had attended the above service complaint on 21.12.2013 is not an authorized service agent or deputed by the opposite parties.  It is further learnt that immediately on receipt of the service complaint on 04.11.2014 one service Engineer had attended on 05.11.2014 and found that the LED Panel and SMPS of the TV got damaged due to short circuit and the same has to be replaced and on the same day an estimation was given approximately for a sum of Rs.17,891/-  which has to be paid by the complainant since the warranty period had already expired and so the service charge of the Rs.169/- also collected by him and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and even now the opposite parties are always ready and willing to rectify the defects of the complainant’s LED TV on payment of necessary charges and the complainant had refused to handover the TV set for service.

15.     At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is crystal clear that the complainant had purchased a Samsung LED TV from the 4^th opposite party through Ex.A1 along with the enclosure and warranty card and the service complaint preferred by the complainant on 04.11.2014.  But at the same time, it is vehemently denied that the service complaint made by the complainant on 14.11.2013 and the person by name one Mr. Srinivasan who have attended the service complaint, who is not an authorized service agent or deputed by the opposite parties.  In such circumstances, it goes without saying that the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the same with concrete and consistent evidence.  At the outset, there is no material or a single piece of evidence to show about the service complaint preferred on 14.11.2013 and one Mr. Srinivasan attended service complaint who is an authorized service agent of the 3^rd opposite party. 

16.     For argument sake, if it is taken that one Mr. Srinivasan was deputed by the 3^rd opposite party to attend the service complaint made on 14.11.2013 for certain repairs occurred in the TV, certainly the service format as  if Ex.A2 would have given by the 3^rd  opposite party.    But no such document filed by the complainant in respect of the service complaint made on 14.11.2013.  Therefore, as rightly pointed by the 1^st opposite party that there is no such service complaint made on 14.11.2013 as alleged in the complaint herein.  Hence, there is no merit in that aspect.

17.     Regarding the next service complaint made on 04.11.2014 by the complainant, it is pertinent to note that on 05.11.2014, the Service Engineer by name Mr. Periyasamy, who was deputed by the opposite parties and properly attended the service complaint and collected the service charge of Rs.169/- by means of  Ex.A2 and an estimation for the replacement of LED Panel and SMPS which is approximately for a sum of Rs.17,891/- which has to be paid by the complainant since the warranty period of 12 months got expired as per Ex.A1, warranty card.   In this circumstances, it is the duty of the Forum to go through the warranty card which was enclosed along with Ex.A1.  It is clearly seen that the warranty period has been mentioned as 12 months and also what are all the parts to be replaced without cost within the warranty period.  While so, as already pointed out that the warranty period already expired as on 05.11.2014 and the replacement charges has necessarily to be paid by the complainant.  Such being so, the complainant has taken plea that the defects occurred within 3 months from the date of purchase and in continued till 04.11.2014 which clearly due to the manufacturing defect and therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

18.     Regarding this fact as already discussed, no document found available before this Forum on the side of the complainant to show about the service complaint made on 14.11.2013 by the complainant.  Not only that, if there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the same by taking steps for obtaining expert opinion.  But such steps has not been taken by the complainant till date.  Therefore, the decision placed by the complainant that “Merely because warranty period has expired, would not absolve the opposite parties, manufacturer or seller of the goods, from the liability if it (product) suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect….,” the North District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

are not applicable to the facts of this complaint on hand. 

(2011 Volume 1 CPJ Pg. no.430 and 2014(1) CPJ pg. no.116)

19.     Similarly in respect of the averments made by the complainant that there was no chance of short circuit since the power supply is very good and no voltage fluctuation at all, the bounden duty of the complainant to prove the same.  But in fact, there is no materials placed by the complainant and hence such plea also goes out.

20.     In the light of the above facts, circumstances and observations made, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not proved the allegations made in the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties with concrete and consistent evidence beyond all doubts.  Therefore, this Forum has concluded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.

21.     Point no.2:-

As per the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and answered this point accordingly.

22.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 25^th   May 2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

Nil.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT