Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/602/2015

Sanjukumar A Pachhapure - Complainant(s)

Versus

Core Electronics. - Opp.Party(s)

B J Gangai

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

                

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.602/2015

                     Date of filing: 11/12/2015

                                                                  Date of disposal:29/11/2016

 

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri.Sanjukumar Allamprabhu Pachhapure, Age: 29 Years, Occ: Legal Practioner, R/o: H.No.248, Guruprasad Nagar, Tilakawadi, Belagavi.                     (Rep. by Sri. B.J.Gangai, Adv.)

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.       2.           3.

Core Electronics, No.25, Khanapur Road, Near Fish Market Camp., Belagavi.   Aapex Refrigeration, Exclusive Samsung Service Center, Shop No.G-7, Sharada Complex,  OPP. KEB Office, Shaniwar Khoot,  Belagavi – 590002.                             (Op.No.1 & 2 Ex-parte)   The Manager, 2870, Orion Building Bagmane Constellation, Business Park, Doddanekundi Circle, Outer Ring Road, Marthalli, Post: Bengaluru – 560037.                       (Rep. by Sri. K.V.Badiger, Adv.)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

By Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to supply and hand over Brand new T.V. with a direction to give Warranty for the period of 2 years or refund the entire amount i.e. Rs.24,628/- with interest @18% p.a. and Rs.25,000/- towards  compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

           It is contended that, the complainant has purchased UA 32 H4140 Samsung LED T.V. from Op.No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.24,628/- by cash on 12.02.2015, after purchase the TV and on the same week the service engineer visited the complainant’s house and fixing the T.V. to the wall by the OP, fixing the  TV to the Wall  it is within their service.

 

          It is further contended that, on 25.10.2015 the fixed T.V. to the wall was fallen and due to fallen the TV damaged, the complainant had given complaint on 26.10.2015 to the Op.No.2 in Ref.No.4203483256 the service engineer of the Op.No.2 had visited complainant’s house and inspected the spot and taken the photographs and requested to the complainant to pay of Rs.500/- and complainant refused to give, because as it is within the warranty period and after inspection the spot and TV,  the Op.No.2 has given a false report as physical damage, but it was not a physical damage.  Further case of the Complainant that when the complainant visited the Op.No.2’s office, surprisingly the Op.No.2 had stated that,  our service engineer found defect in set, i.e LED T.V. is physical damage and Op.No.2 is not responsible.

 

          The complainant further contended that, T.V. was fallen from the wall and Op.No.2 had given written false reply as physical damage and opponents are not giving and providing good service. Therefore, the Op.No.2 has not given proper service to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and un fair trade practice and this attitude of the opponents, the complainant has suffered mentally, physically and financial torture. Hence, the complainant finally got issued the legal notice through his advocate to opponents same has been duly served and Op.No.1 gave evasive reply and denied the claim and Op.No.2 & 3 have received the notice but they did not replied. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the Ops directed to supply and hand over Brand new T.V. with a direction to give Warranty for the period of 2 years or refund the entire amount i.e. Rs.24,628/- with interest @18% p.a. and Rs.25,000/- towards  compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

3.      After issue of notice to the Opponents, the notice duly served on Op.No.1 & 2 have neither appeared nor filed any version before this Forum. Hence, the opponent No.1 & 2 are placed Ex-parte and the opponent No.3 has appeared through his Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing his written version and strongly opposed the claim of the complainant, the OP submitted that, all contents of the para except purchase of the TV from this OP.No.1 and remaining contents of the complaints para are false, frivolous and vexatious and denied the allegation of the complainant. The case of the Op.No.3 is that, the complainant is not entitled for free service as well as free replacement of parts. It is contended as per clause-7 of the warranty condition.

 

Further OP submitted that, the company will provide free demo as well as free installation of product through their authorized service centre only as and when Samsung product is purchased by the customer, there is no need to pay the payments and then the question does not arise in respect of demanding service charge as alleged by the complainant.

 

          Further it is contended that, after purchase of TV by the complainant the OP.No.2 is the Service man visited the house and wall mounted the TV as well as conducted the demo by demonstrating to their family. After completion of installation and demonstration and the complainant has given signature on the job sheet. In the said job sheet, the Op.No.2 has clearly mentioned about completion of demo and installation work as well as made an endorsement that set is made Ok. As such on the date of installation and thereafter i.e. more than 8 months, the TV is in good working condition and till filing of the complaint there is no any defect or problem in the set.

     

          It is submitted and denied that, the TV is fallen due to not fixing the screw properly and further contended that, there were all  4 screws are fixed properly and there is no any chance to fallen because, the 4 screws to the bucket still intact as per photo till this day. Even though the service centre tried to explain the real facts and reason for not covering warranty the complainant is not ready to pay any amounts as per repair estimated. The OP.No.3 produced office copy of repair estimate given to the complainant as doct.No.6. When the product is repairable as well as when there is some obligations on the part of the complainant like to bear the actual cost towards repair/service cost.

 

But, the complainant is demanding replacement or refund of cost of the TV which is not mentioned and not explained. It is fact that, the complainant approached the service centre only once for service purpose. Hence, Ops prayed for dismissed complaint with costs.  

 

5.      The complainant in support of his case, he has filed his affidavit evidence as PW 1 and produced 06 documents, we marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 and for shake of our convenience we have marked P & R series. As against this, Op.No.3 has filed his affidavit evidence as RW 1 and produced 05 documents marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5.

 

          Both sides have submitted the written and oral arguments, wherein they have put forward very same contention, which they have urged in complaint, written version and respective affidavit evidence and oral arguments of both sides have also been heard.

 

6.      Now, on the basis of these facts, the following points are arise for our consideration:

 

1.  Whether the complainant has proved that, there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops for not replace the TV or refund the cost?

 

2. What order?

 

7.      Answer to the above Points:-

 

1.  Negative.

 

2.  As per final Order.

 

 

REASONS:-

 

8.      Point No.1: After perusing the evidence of both parties, documents produced by the parties and scanning the written arguments, it is evident and admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased the TV from Op.No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.24,628/- by cash on 12.02.2015, in this respect,  the complainant has produced receipt No.15369 which is marked as Ex.P-1, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant is a consumer as is defined under the provisions of the C.P. Act.

 

          Further the case of the complainant is that, the said purchase TV, carried the warranty, suddenly on 25.10.2015 the fixed T.V to the wall was fallen and damaged, the complainant had given complaint on 26.10.2015 to the Op.No.2 in Ref.No.4203483256, thereafter the service engineer of the Op.No.2 had visited complainant’s house and inspected the spot and taken the photographs and demand Rs. 500/- but, complainant refused to give  as it is within the warranty period and the Op.No.2 has given a false report and  stating that, it is physical damage, further case of the complainant that due to not properly fixed the TV to the wall as one Screw of the Becket was not found, for that proposition of law the complainant has not produce any material document to show that  the said damage is not external damage and it is cover in the warranty period and the complainant has not establish inspect damage due to not properly fixed the TV to the wall by the service men of OP.No.2 and there is no any material document or affidavit evidence to hold that, it is negligent service of the Ops and not proper fixing the screw as alleged in the Complaint as well as evidence and even there is no any independent evidence to prove that, due to not proper fixing the TV to the wall as alleged by the Complainant, the Fixed TV fallen. In our considered opinion if the service of the Ops were not proper towards fixing the TV, then the TV might have been fallen within same day or within few days as alleged, but it was not happened so. Therefore the contention of the complainant cannot be believable and  there is no any merit in the contention and there is no force in the contention as alleged by the complainant in the complaint. Therefore, the said contention of the complainant could not be accepted. Looking to the pleading of the complainant and evidence, in our opinion the complainant has not proved or established the case as alleged in the complaint, therefore there is no any negligent or deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.

 

The OP 3 has clearly explain and  taken contention that, when there is external damage to the TV how the complainant could have claimed the replacement or refund, when there is no any deficiency or fault of the OPs and when there is clear clause-7 of warranty condition, then as to replace the TV or refund the amount of the said TV, the question does not arise and it is not an amount of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, for that proposition of law, the Op.No.3 has produced the documents, out of which 1 document which is marked as Ex.R-1 i.e. warranty card, the said document is crystal clear that, it is evident that clause-7 of the warranty condition, “as if any damage is caused to product due to mis-use or mis-handling by the customer as detected by the authorized service centre, under such circumstances even though the product is within warranty period, still the company is not liable to provide free service or free replacement of any part due to certain act done by the customer”. Further the OP 3 relied the decision of Hon’ble National Commissioner reported in 1 (2006) CPJ (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commissioner observed that  if there is no manufacturing defects the company is not liable & further observed that, the factum of manufacturing defects not proved. Replacement/refund cannot be ordered if defects can be repaired. Hence the above said decision is aptly applicable to this case for the reason that there is no any defect in the TV Set & there is no any deficiency by the OPs as alleged in the complaint. Therefore the contention of the OP No.3 is acceptable and it has merit.

 

Looking to the above facts and relied decision by the OP 3 & when the customer/complainant signed to the job sheet bearing No.4189535859 by endorsing completion of demo and installation work which is marked as Ex.R-2. It is pertinent to note that, at this juncture, when the complainant has signed after demo and signed on the said job sheet, the service engineer has clearly mentioned about completion of demo and installation work as well as made an endorsement that, set is made Ok.

 

In this case, the complainant has failed to establish that due negligent act of the Op 3 his TV has fallen and the damaged is not repairable, but OP.No.3 submitted that, it is repairable if the complainant has paid the charges towards the parts of T.V. So, the complainant is only demanding to replace the T.V. or refund the cost of damaged. For that proposition of law, we would like to rely on a decision of Supreme Court as well as NCDRC, if part can be replaced then, seeking replacement of entire product does not arise by paying the charge of the parts. Therefore in our considered view, it is not manufacture defect and it is not unfair trade practice as alleged by the complaint and it is not amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Ops.

   

          Looking to the fact and circumstance we have observed that even  the complainant not at all proves his case by giving material document in respect of damage. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to prove the alleged defects or to prove  as per warranty condition the external damage also cover  to entitle. Therefore, looking from any angle the complainant can’t claim compensation from Ops and there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops. Therefore, in our considered opinion that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we answer this Point negative. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

 

O R D E R

 

For the reason discuss above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the C.P. Act – 1986 is here by dismissed.

 

No order as to costs. 

 

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this  29^th day of November, 2016).

 

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.