Date of filing: 11.11.2016 Date of disposal: 30.3.2017
Complainant: Sebadas Chattopadhyay, S/o. Late Sankar Prasad Chattopadhyay, resident of Hospital road, Qtr. No. HB3, PO: Burnpur, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 325.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Excel Service, Authorised Samsung Service Centre, represented by its Manager, having its office at 34/1, S.B.Gorai Road (Beside Petrol Pump), Asansol, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 301.
2. SAMSUNG India electronics Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director, having its office at 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech. Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122 002………. (EXPUNGED)
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is initiated by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not take any step to remove the defects from the questioned LED till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LED manufactured by the OP-2 from REKO Electronics at Asansol on 15.11.2014. The consideration amount of the said 32 inches LED was for Rs. 26,796=00 including VAT. The OP-1 is the authorized service centre of the OP-2. Warranty card was issued for the said purchase for one year. At the time of purchasing the said LED, the shop, namely, REKO Electronics issued a tax invoice in favour of the complainant. During the course of its use by the complainant, on and from 10.7.2015 one scratch occurred on the screen of the LED automatically. As the said scratch was creating disturbance in watching the picture, the complainant lodged a complaint before the OP-1. Upon receipt of the said complaint the OP-1 sent their representative at the house of the complainant in the month of July, 2015 and the said representative took some photographs of the LED only. The representative of the OP-1 at the time of visiting assured the complainant that they would solve the dispute within one week but he refused to give any endorsement or provide any job sheet to the complainant. The OP -1 did not take any step to solve the problem. The complainant made e-mail with SAMSUNG Customer Support Centre on 29.7.2015; further contact with the OP-1 was on 30.7.2015. On all occasions separate complaint numbers were issued. At that time the men and agent of the OP-1 intimated the complainant that the scratch occurred due to external heating and for that reason the problem does not fall within the purview of the warranty. The complainant was also intimated by them that an amount of Rs. 14,809=00 will be required for removing the said defects/repairing of the LED TV. The men and agent of the OP-1 had only taken some photographs but they neither opened the TV set nor examined the said set mechanically. Without adopting any test by engaging their expert or engineer, the OP-1 arbitrarily opined that the problem occurred due to external heating, which is nothing but an example of unfair trade practice by way of undue gain. Thereafter, the complainant on several times requested the Ops to solve the problem as the LED TV set is within the warranty period and made e-mail to the SAMSUNG Customer Support Centre on 12.8.2015, but to no effect. As the grievance of the complainant had not been redressed, hence having no alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops either to repair the LED of the complainant free of cost or replace the same with a new one of same description, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000=00 due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000=00.
After admission of the complaint notices were issued to the OPs through this Ld. Forum. The order no-4 dated 03.01.2017 reveals that the notice was duly served upon the OP-1, but the OP-1 chose not to appear before the Ld. Forum to contest the complaint either orally or by filing written version. Therefore the Ld. Forum was pleased to fix the complaint for hearing exparte against the OP-1. As the notice in respect of the OP-2 had returned with the endorsement as ‘insufficient address’, the Complainant was directed to take proper step in respect of service of notice upon the OP-2. Accordingly the name of the OP-2 was expunged from the cause title of the complaint in accordance with the prayer of the Complainant.
On the date of hearing argument the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant was present. None was present on behalf of the OP-1. We took up the argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
We have carefully perused the petition of complaint and the papers and documents submitted by the Complainant in support of his contention. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant purchased one LED on 15.11.2014 from RECO Electronics, Asansol by making payment of the consideration amount of Rs.26,796=00. The said item was covered under the warranty clause for the period of one year. Within the validity of the warranty period i.e. on 10.07.2015 one scratch occurred on the screen of the LED, which created much disturbance for watching the LED. Accordingly the OP-1 was intimated about this incident by the Complainant, who sent its men at the residence of the Complainant to resolve the problem. The allegation of the Complainant is that though the OP-1 gave assurance that the problem/dispute will be removed within a week from the date of the visit of the personnel of the OP-1, but ultimately the OP-1 did not take any initiative to resolve the dispute, rather the Complainant was told that for removal of such defect cost will be borne by the Complainant to the tune of Rs.14,809=00. The Complainant has submitted that as the LED was under the warranty period, hence the OP-1 cannot claim any amount from him towards the cost for removal of the defect. As the dispute had not been resolved by the OP-1, hence by filing this complaint the Complainant has sought for certain relief.
We have gone through the warranty clause as filed by the Complainant, which was provided to him at the time of purchase of the LED. It is noticed by us that the Complainant has made several written transaction with the OP including sending e-mail requesting for removal of the defect, but till filing of this complaint no fruitful step had been taken by the OP-1 for redressal of his grievance. Admittedly the complaint has been filed supported by affidavit and as the OP-1 did not turn up to contest the said complaint by filing written version on affidavit, hence we are not in a position to disbelieve the averment of the complaint. In our view as the defect/scratch has been occurred in the said LED within the warranty period, hence in our view the OP-1 is under the obligation to remove the same from the questioned LED totally free of cost, otherwise if it is found that the scratch cannot be removed by way of repairing, hence the OP-1 is also under obligation to replace the questioned LED with a new and similar description one and for such replacement the OP-1 shall not claim any amount from the Complainant. It is true that inspite of several correspondences made by the Complainant with the OP-1 through which request was made for removal of the said defect, but the OP-1 did not bother to take any positive step to do the same and for which the Complainant had to face mental agony, pain and harassment. So in our opinion the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OP-1 and as by filing the complaint the Complainant has to incur some expenses, the Complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost from the OP-1. As the Complainant has successfully proved his case by adducing cogent documents, hence the complaint succeeds.
Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed ex parte against the OP-1 with cost. The OP-1 is directed to take step for removal of the scratch from the LED purchased by the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment completely free of cost, in default, the OP-1 shall replace the questioned LED of the Complainant with a new one having similar description within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment. The OP-1 is further directed to make payment of Rs.2,000=00 as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1,000=00 to the Complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the Complainant will be at liberty to put the entire order in execution as per provision of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
