Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

85/2014

M.Sivaprakasam - Complainant(s)

Versus

By its proprietor,Santhosh & company - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

28 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on:  23.04.2014

                                                                  Order pronounced on:  28.12.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 28^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.85/2014

 

 

M.Sivaprakasam,

No.9A, S.R.B.Nagar,

11^th Street, Kolathur Post,

Chennai – 600 099.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

     1. Santhosh & Company,

By its Proprietor,

No-61 –A M T Road,

•  

Chennai – 600 049.

 

2. Customer Care Service,

By its Senior Executive,

M/s. Samsung India Electronic Private Limited,

II,III & IV Floor, Tower “C” Vipul Tech Square,

Sector 43, Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon 122 002, Haryana.

 

3.M/s.Samsung India Electronic Private Limited,

By its Manager,

24, Rajasekaran Street, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

 

4.M/s. J.M.Electronics,

 By its Manager,

4/71, Kummalamman Koil Street,

Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   : 29.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                       : Party in person

Counsel for 2^nd  & 3^rd opposite parties     : M/s.V.V.Giridhar

 

Counsel for 1^st & 4^th Opposite Parties      : Ex - parte

 

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant purchased Samsung Television HD LED TV of 81.28 cms for a consideration of Rs.33,000/- on  14.10.2013 from the 1^st Opposite Party. After 10 days of installation the TV often getting switched off automatically with blank screen and restart after 5 -10 seconds. The Complainant registered a Complaint with the customer care services at Gurgaon and Chennai of the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Party on 27.10.2013 vide reference number 8458911501. Only after several remainders the technicians Mr.Selvaraj, Mr.Srinivasan and Mr.Giridharan attended the problem without arriving any remedy. The problem in the product was aggravated and gets automatically switched off and starts monthly 10 – 20 times. Even after 6 months of the Complaint made, the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 have not taken any action. Hence the Complainant informed the 4^th Opposite Party who is the authorized service provider of the Samsung Company about the problem. The 4^th Opposite Party sent his technicians and they took the TV to their centre for servicing and observation. However after two days they returned the TV. Further in addition to the existing problem an unwanted sound also came from the TV and the same has been reported to the customer care services on 02.03.2014, 08.03.2014 and 13.02.2014, but all efforts turned into vain. The executive of the customer care services at Chennai Thiru Manickavel explained the situation and requested to replace with new one as the problem remains unsolved. The Complainant also requested the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties to replace with a new one. However the Opposite Parties have not replaced with new TV. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for replacement of new TV, compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED  OF THE  2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY ADOPTED BY  THE 3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF :

          The Complainant purchased the TV is in good condition and there was no defect as alleged by the Complainant. On 27.10.2013, the Complainant has lodged a Complaint to the customer care services that the TV is getting switched off and on automatically and on 28.10.2013 the service engineer of the 2^nd Opposite Party attended the Complaint and found that there was no defect in the Television and the said television was working perfectly in good condition and the Complaint given by the Complainant was closed as no defect. Likewise the Complainant made similar Complaints on several occasion and the technicians also inspected the television and found there was no defect as alleged by the Complainant.  Whenever the Complainant lodged the Complaint with the customer care the same was attended by technicians of the 2^nd Opposite Party and they have found always no defect in the television.  On 27.12.2013 the Complainant made a service Complaint with the 4^th Opposite Party and he had taken the television and observed for two days and no defect was found in the television and product was returned to the Complainant.  However when the service person attended the Complaint, the Complainant had refused to sign the job card and therefore the Opposite Party closes the service call has there was no co-operation from the side of the Complainant.  From the above it is clear that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and Complainant cannot take undue advantage of his own default in not signing the job card.  No defect was found on the television set purchased by the Complainant and therefore the question of replacement of the television set did not arise. With regard to the service Complaints dated 02.03.2014, 08.03.2014, 12.03.2014, alleging that unwanted sounds is also coming from the television set, the same was attended by the service engineers and it was found that there was no defect in the television set purchased by the Complainant and the television is found to be in order and it was working in a good condition.  There is no cause of action arises on the bare reading of the Complaint as against the Opposite Parties and therefore the above Complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1

          The Complainant purchased a Samsung 32’’ Led TV from the 1^st Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.33,000/- under Ex.A1 cash bill on 14.10.2013 and Ex.A2 is the warranty card issued to the TV purchased by the Complainant.

          5. According to the Complainant after purchase of the TV/product  after 10 days the product often  getting switched off automatically with blank screen and restarts after 5 – 10 seconds and hence he lodged a Complaint on 27.10.2013 with the customer care services at Gurgaon and Chennai of the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties and after several remainders, their technicians Mr.Selvaraj Mr.Srinivasan and Mr.Giridharan attended the problem without arriving any remedy and the problem in the  product, in the meantime  aggravated and thereafter he informed the 4^th Opposite Party (Authorized Service Provider) and their  technicians came and took the TV and observed for two days and returned the product without solving any problem  and further an unwanted sound also came from the product and therefore the Opposite Parties technicians unable to solve any problem and therefore the product itself is a defective one and prays to replace with new one.

          6. The 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties replied that whenever the Complainant lodged Complaint, the same was attended by their technicians and always they found that the product is in good condition and the Complainant has not filed any job sheet to prove the deficiency in the product and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

          7. The TV  purchased by the Complainant was manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 3^rd Opposite Party is the Regional Office of the 2^nd Opposite Party  and the 1^st Opposite Party is the dealer of the Samsung TV and the 4^th Opposite Party is the  Authorized Service Provider of the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties.

8. The Complainant alleged that after 10 days of the purchase of the product, it automatically gets switched off and restarts after few seconds and hence he made Complaint on 28.10.2013 and again he made Complaint to the 4^th Opposite Party and also made Complaint to the customer care on 13.02.2014, 02.03.2014 and 08.03.2014  about the problem. And in proof of the same he had filed Ex.A3 letter Ex.A4 E-mail letters to the customer care and Opposite Parties. The 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties admits in their written version that whenever the Complainant made Complaint their technicians have attended the problem in the Complainant TV. Therefore the Complainant proved that he made several Complaints to the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties and their technicians also attended the problem.

9. However, the 2^nd & 3^rd specifically argued that the Complainant has not filed the job sheets to know that what was the nature of work done by the technicians and further argued that actually there was no defect in the product. The Opposite Parties himself admitted in their written version that whenever the Complaint made their technicians have attended the Complaints. They further pleaded in their written version that since there was no defect in the Complaint given by the Complainant the same was closed as no defect found when the service engineer attended the problem on 28.10.2013 and further argued that the Complainant was refused to sign in the job sheets.  When the Complainant refused to sign in the job sheet and closed by the technicians or service engineer certainly the said job sheets must be with the Opposite Parties and they ought not to have given a copy of the job sheet to the Complainant, since he refused to sign in the job sheet.  As no job sheet copy furnished to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties, he cannot be expected to file the same before this Forum. However, admittedly when the service engineer who attended the defect on 28.10.2013 could have recorded in the job sheet that no defect was found by him in the product and closed the Complaint and such copy of the job sheet should have been filed before this Forum to establish that the Complainant product has no defect at all.  Further, on 27.12.2013 the 4^th Opposite Party technicians had taken the product for two days for observation and no defect was found in the product and even for such observation the job sheet was not produced. Likewise as per written version the Complaints dated 02.03.2014, 08.03.2014 and 12.03.2014 alleging that unwanted sounds coming from the television was also found by the service engineer that there was no defect and for such recording also the Opposite Parties have not filed the copy of the job sheet. Therefore, in such circumstances the Opposite Parties admittedly not delivered copy of the job sheet to the Complainant and the Opposite Parties themselves have not produced the job sheets to accept that there was no defect in the product and from the Complaints Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 of the Complainant proves the deficiency in the product purchased by him and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 have committed Deficiency in Service. As far as the 1^st Opposite Party is concerned, he is only a dealer and he was not participated in providing service to the product of the Complainant, and therefore we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

10.POINT NO:2

          The Complainant sought relief for replacement of new TV. The counsel for Opposite Party 2 & 3 specifically argued referring clauses 8 & 9 in Ex.A2 warranty card that the replacement of product cannot be granted. The warranty provides only for limited repair or replacement of parts only. The Opposite Parties contended that there is no defect at all in the product. However this Forum found that there is defect in the product and the same was not rectified by the technicians of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and therefore in such circumstances the warranty clauses referred as above do not apply in the circumstances of the case. Already the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 in providing service to remove the defect in   the Complainant product, it is held above that they have committed Deficiency in Service. Therefore, granting the replacement of TV is not suitable to the Complainant and instead it would be appropriate to order to refund the cost of the product of sum of Rs.33,000/- could be justified.  The TV became defective from the 10^th day of purchase and therefore the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.   

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 2 to 4 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees thirty three thousand  only ) towards the cost of the product  to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 1^st Opposite Party is dismissed.

        The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th   day of December 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.10.2013                   Santhosh & Company/Cash Bill

Ex.A2 dated 14.10.2013                   Warranty Card

Ex.A3 dated 11.02.2014                   The Manager Customer Care Service, Gugaon

Ex.A4 dated 14.01.2014                   E-mail Details:

                                                14.01.2014,21.01.2014,23.01.2014,25.01.2014

                                                28.01.2014 & 04.02.2014

 

Ex.A5 dated 15.02.2014                   Speed Post sent to details

Ex.A6 dated 17.02.2014                   Speed post Received the details

Ex.A7 dated 10.11.2013                   Details of calls made to customer care

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      ……NIL …..                          

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT