Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/298/2013

K.Senthilkumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Digitals Waves - Opp.Party(s)

E.Vijayanand

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 01.10.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.298/2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

K. Senthilkumar,

S/o. Mr. K. Kumarasamy,

No.459, G.N.T. Road,

Kavaraipettai,

Gumidipoondi Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                         ..Versus..

 

1. The Chief Executive Officer,

The Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

No.6^th, 7^th & 8^th Floors, IFCI Tower,

No.61, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 19.

 

2. The General Manager,

The Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.k

No.6^th, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower,

No.61, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 19.

 

3. The Manager,

DIGITAL WAVES,

Authorised Samsung Service Center,

No.6, 2^nd Main Road,

CIT Colony, Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. E. Vijayanand & others

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. V.V. Giridhar & others

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party        :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain with cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a Samsung Projector 54” Colour TV Model No.SP54T9HE1XT2 on 02.01.2005 in Spencers Super Store at Anna Salai, Chennai for a sum of Rs.1,12,000/-.   Further the complainant submits that from the date of purchase, the said TV developed a lot of technical snag and thereby, forced the complainant to lodge several complaints to the Customer Care number.  But the opposite parties did not respond in a proper manner and the complainant is driven from pillar to post for due repairs.   Further the complainant submits that the 3^rd opposite party came to the complainant’s residence to repair the said TV set.   But without resolving the technical snag in the said TV, the 3^rd opposite party charged huge amount of Rs.4,824/- and Rs.6,455/- towards service charges on 07.01.2010 & 19.01.2010.   Even after that the television did not work properly.   Further the complainant submits that the opposite parties has not come forward to repair the TV.  Even after repeated request and demands  the opposite party behaved in such a manner and treated the complainant very badly.  On 18.02.2012, he lodged a complaint which is registered as complaint No.8431503401.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated: 24.08.2012 for which, the opposite parties did not sent any reply.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1  & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that they were not aware of the complainant’s purchase from Spencer’s Super Store at Anna Salai on 02.01.2005.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 denied the fact that the said TV was defective from the date of purchase.  Further the opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the alleged complaints regarding repairs and service of the 3^rd opposite party were not known.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the manufacturers were kept in dark with regard to natural defects and the transaction between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 got no notices, they are not responsible in any manner to the various allegations made in the complaint.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are renowned manufacturer, who manufacturers good quality products / consumables which are sold in the market by various dealers.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   Hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.

3.     Inspite of notice sent to the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party has neither chosen to appear before this Forum and hence the 3^rd opposite party is set Exparte.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. 

5.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 3^rd opposite party remained Exparte.  Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a Samsung Projector 54” Colour TV Model No.SP54T9HE1XT2 on 02.01.2005 in Spencers Super Store at Anna Salai, Chennai for a sum of Rs.1,12,000/- as per Ex.A1, bill which is not denied by the opposite parties.   Further the complainant contended that from the date of purchase, the said TV developed a lot of technical snag and thereby, forced the complainant to lodge several complaints to the Customer Care number.  But there is no response in a proper manner and the complainant is driven pillar to post for due repairs.  But there is no record and the complainant has not produced the warranty card  also.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the 3^rd opposite party came to the complainant’s residence to repair the said TV set but without resolving the technical snag in the said TV, the 3^rd opposite party charged huge amount of Rs.4,824/- and Rs.6,455/-  respectively towards service charges as per Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 dated:07.01.2010 & 19.01.2010.   But even after such payment  and service  the television did not work properly  proves deficiency in service. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties has not come forward to repair the TV in a proper manner even after repeated request and demands  and behaved in such a manner and treated the complainant very badly caused great mental agony. But there is no record.   On 18.02.2012, the complainant  lodged a complaint which is registered as complaint No.8431503401.  But no action has been taken by the opposite party on the said complaint.  Fed up by the unfair trade practice of the 3^rd opposite party, the complainant issued legal notice dated: 24.08.2012 as per Ex.A4 for which, there is no response proves the deficiency in service.  The allegation is that the service / repair done by the 3^rd opposite party was not properly done eventhough they had collected huge amount for spares and service charges and none of the complaints/ technical snag were attended by them.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost.  But the complainant has not proved such huge claim in a manner known to law.  The basis for such huge claim also not explained.

8.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that they were not aware of the complainant’s purchase from Spencer’s Super Store at Anna Salai on 02.01.2005 is not acceptable.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 denied the fact that the said TV was defective from the date of purchase and the complainant has not produced any record to prove such alleged defectiveness from the date of purchase.  But it is seen that several complaints made and registered.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the alleged complaints regarding repairs and service of the 3^rd opposite party were not known is not acceptable because the 3^rd opposite party without filing any written version and proof affidavit remained Exparte.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the manufacturers were kept in dark with regard to natural defects and the transaction between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party but it is not denied that the 3^rd opposite party is the Authorised Service Provider.    The complainant has not pleaded and proved that the impugned TV have manufacturing defects.  The 3^rd opposite party is the service provider shall repair the TV in accordance with the service conditions.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   There is no cause of action against the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The complaint is also barred by limitation against opposite parties 1 & 2.   But it is seen from the record that the issue of limitation was decided in favour of the complainant in F.A. No.112/2013 filed by the complainant.  Hence, the said contention that it is barred by limitation is not acceptable.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that it is crystal clear that the 3^rd opposite party had not attended the complaints in the TV with regard to the repairing works and committed deficiency in service.  Moreover, the complainant is alleging only service deficiency against the 3^rd opposite party and not manufacturing defect.  Therefore, the opposite parties 1 & 2 are not liable for the alleged deficiency in service of the 3^rd opposite party since the opposite parties 1 & 2 are manufacturers.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the 3^rd opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not attending the complaint in the TV and caused mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore, the 3^rd opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

       In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.   The complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 is hereby dismissed.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	02.01.20005	Copy of purchase bill
Ex.A2	07.01.2010	Copy of Service Invoice of the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A3	19.04.2010	Copy of service Invoice of the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A4	24.08.2012	Copy of Telegraphic legal notice issued by the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

                                                                              

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT