This C.C is coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri M. Nagesh Babu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 4; and the complainant and opposite party no.2 appeared in person; and opposite party No.3 served called absent; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing; and having stood over for consideration; this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.        The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is native of Khammam town, he purchased Samsung TV 48 inches H-5500 Model from the opposite party No.3 as they agreed to deliver the same through their local Sono Vision branch, i.e. opposite party No.2 at Khammam and according to their promise the complainant purchased the same by paying an amount of Rs.79,900/- on 15-02-2015 at Sonovision, Somajiguda Hyderabad.  The complainant submitted that at the time of purchase he made loan application to Bajaj FINSERV / LENDING  for a consumer durable and on his application they sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.68,700/- vide consumer durable product deal ID No.SF20624767, subsequently as per their promise the opposite party No.2 delivered the same through their branch at Khammam, and also the technician of opposite party No.2 came to the house of the complainant and installed the Samsung TV.  The complainant submitted that the Television worked for few days and thereafter, it is not working, which is within the warranty, the complainant immediately gave complaint to the local service centre i.e. with the opposite party No.1 on 28-08-2015  and also made complaint to customer care centre and they registered the complaint vide No.4199785509.  The complainant further submitted that the technician of opposite party No.1 visited the house of the complainant, after gone through the Television and informed that there is panal problem i.e. manufacturing defect and it should be replaced with new one.  The complainant further submitted that the complainant met the opposite party No.1 number of times and requested to replace the panel with new one, but the opposite party No.1 postponed the same from time to time and informed that, they informed the same to the company and waiting for the reply and as soon as they receive the same, they will replace the panel with new one, believing the promise the complaint met  the opposite party No.1 so many times, all the way time is lapsed but the opposite party No.1 failed to fulfil their promise as such vexed with their attitude the complainant issued notice to opposite party No.1 to 4 on 10-09-2015 and the same was served on the opposite parties, the opposite parties neither replied nor complied the promise as they made for that the complainant approached the Forum.

3.       On behalf of the complainant the following documents were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.

Ex.A-1:-  Photocopy of bill for Rs.79,900/-, dt.15-02-2015.

Ex.A-2:- Photocopy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite  parties No.1 to 4 (Nos. 4).

Ex.A-3:-  Courier Receipts (Nos.4) along with proof of delivery.

4.       On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No.1 & 4 appeared through their counsel and filed written version.  In their written version opposite parties submitted that the deficiency of service and manufacturing defect not only should be alleged in specific terms but also should be substantiated by corroborative evidence, in the instant complaint the above ingredients are lacking and the complaint is not maintainable.  The opposite parties further submitted that on 28-08-2015 the complainant lodged a complaint with opposite party No.1 is admitted, the engineer of opposite party No.1 immediately visited the residence of complainant and it is found that there is a scratch on the panel, which is a physical damage and as such, the warranty has become void, therefore, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.26,392/- towards the part cost but the complainant refused to pay and accordingly the replace could not be attended.  The opposite parties further submitted that similarly the complainant made another complaint No.4203113391, dt. 19-10-2015 and another complaint No.4204881116, dt. 17-11-2015, and the opposite parties promptly attended and informed the complainant as above.  The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant is guilty of suppressing facts as there is physical damage to the Television, at the time of purchase the Television is in good condition as the same installed vide No.4190004926 on 23-03-2015 and the set was in good working condition and almost worked for 6 months till August 2015, the reason for the improper working of the Television is because of physical damage caused by the complainant and therefore, the complaint can be attended only on payment basis including the spare parts.  The opposite parties further submitted that according to the observation of opposite party No.1, the panel requires to be replaced and the same was estimated Rs.26,392, in the circumstances there is no deficiency on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       Chief Affidavit of opposite party No.4 filed.

6.       Heard Oral Arguments.

7.       Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,

1) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

2) To what relief?

Point No. 1:-

In this case the complainant purchased Samsung Television from the opposite party No.3 as they agreed to deliver the same through their local Sono- vision branch at Khammam i.e. opposite party No.2, by paying an amount of Rs.79,900/- on 15-02-2015 at the time of purchase the opposite party issued warranty. As the Television is not working properly, the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1. On the advise of opposite party No.1, the complainant given a complaint to the online customer care centre and they registered the complaint vide complaint No.4199785509.  According to the complainant, the technician of opposite party No.1 visited the house of the complainant and informed that there is panel problem i.e. manufacturing defect and it should be replaced with new one, waiting for a considerable time as the opposite parties failed to rectify the problem or to replace with new panel, the complainant got issued notice and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties. Even though as the opposite parties failed to replace with new one, the complainant approached the forum for deficiency in service.

From the material available on record, we observed that the complainant purchased a new Television and it gave trouble within warranty period. The complainant became dissatisfied with the not working condition of the Television; he had given a complaint to the opposite parties to rectify the problem or to replace with new one.   We observed from the complaint that the service engineer visited the house of the complainant but failed to rectify the problem and informed that there is panel problem i.e. manufacturing defect and it should be replaced with new one.   After that the complainant had taken all the steps by way of issuing notice and filing complaint before this forum. According to the opposite parties, they are ready to replace the panel on payment of Rs.26,392/- by the complainant.  But the opposite parties failed to produce any evidence to support their contention that as per their technician report there is a physical damage to the Television.  In “Prabhath Kumar Sinha & another Vs. Nitish Kumar III (2016) CPJ 239 (NC) wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the petitioners being the sellers of defective computer were under obligation either to rectify the defects or to replace computer or refund the consideration amount received”.  From the above we observed that the defect is major or minor, once the consumer looses satisfaction of having Television. The loss of satisfaction would be much more in the case when a person buys a new Television with his hard earned money. In view of the aforesaid reasons this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to replace the defective panel with new one, put the Television in working condition and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs and damages.  The opposite parties are directed to rectify the problem within one month from the date of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 24^th day of August, 2016.

PRESIDENT             MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam