DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                            .…. PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A.,B.L.,                                                                     ......MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                           ......MEMBER-II   

 

CC. No.57/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

Mr.A.Ganga Eswaran, S/o.P.Anandan,

No.3/9, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Vivekanantha Nagar,

Kodungaiyur, Chennai -118.                                                               ……Complainant.  

                                                                                 //Vs//

The General Manager,

Vijay Electronics, 

No.Y215, 2nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai -40.                                                               …..opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                        :   M/s.S.Thenpandian, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                 :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 06.10.2022 in the presence of M/s.S.Thenpandian  counsel for the complainant and the opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to purchase of LED 46”/46H7000 television along with a prayer to refund of the television cost of Rs.1,19,900/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.   

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

  It was submitted that the television was purchased from the opposite party which was delivered on 18.03.2015.  In the first week of February 2016 extra light was seen in the corner of the screen which was duly informed on 15.02.2016 to the opposite party who directed the complainant to inform to the Samsung Service Centre.  On 25.02.2016 the complainant approached the Samsung Service Centre who advised to take certain test by the complainant himself for which the complainant was not agreeable.  In the mean time a small light transferred into a block horizontal bar and caused endurance in watching the screen.  Again the complainant approached the opposite party and the Samsung Service Center but of no use.  Hence on 03.07.2016 the Customer Care was contacted by the complainant with regard to the complaint and on 24.10.2016 the television mechanic examined the television and found that the display was defective. On enquiry it is stated by him that Rs.50,000/- would be the cost for repairing the said display.  Again the complainant approached the opposite party on 09.07.2016 and on 20.09.2016 but of no use. After several efforts on 06.06.2017 the television set was handed over to the opposite party for repair as the product was within the warranty period.  But till today the television set was not repaired and handed over to the complainant.  Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for refund of the television cost of Rs.1,19,900/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

 On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7. Despite service of notice the opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and set ex-parte on 16.07.2019 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period.

Points for consideration:

Whether the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in selling the defective television to the complainant has been successfully proved by the complainant?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

  Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party for the purchase of television dated 14.03.2015 was marked as Ex.A1;

Cash receipt issued by the Service Engineer of the Samsung dated 24.10.2016 was marked as Ex.A2;

Email from the complainant to the opposite party 07.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;

Samsung smart plaza branches address was marked as Ex.A4;

Receipt to handover television with the opposite party dated 06.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;

Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party to take action dated 07.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 31.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the television set “LED 46”/46H7000” was purchased from the opposite party which got defective within 11 months of purchase and when the same was entrusted to the opposite party for rectifying the defect, till today the same was not returned to him and thus sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

We perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by the complainant.  As per Ex.A1 the LED 46”/46H7000 was seen to have purchased for a total sum of Rs.1,19,900/- and vide Ex.A3 it is seen that a complaint was made to the Anna Nagar Vijay Electronics with regard to the defect seen in the television.  Further vide Ex.A5 we could see that the opposite party had acknowledged the receipt of television from the complainant on 06.06.2017 for making repairs.  The complainant also addressed letter to the General Manager Mr.Anand of the opposite party seeking to resolve the issue and also legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 31.07.2018 was submitted as Ex.A7.  From the above material evidence this commission come to a conclusion that the television set LED 46”/46H7000 was handed over to the opposite party for rectification of the defect.  In the present case the manufacturer was not made a party to the complaint though the allegation related to inherent defect in the product LED 46”/46H7000 was made by the complainant.  However, as in the present case the television set was handed over only to the opposite party on assurance of rectification, the non-joinder of manufacturer will not affect the complaint and will not be to the Prejudicial merits of the complaint. It is also seen that the product handed over to the opposite party was not returned till today.  The complaint and legal notice sent by the complainant was not answered by the opposite party.  Even before this commission the opposite party did not turn up to rebut the complaint allegations and hence this commission can safely conclude that the complainant has proved that the defective product was not returned to him by the opposite party after rectification of the defect.  Thus we hold that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service.  This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.2:

With regard to the relief to be granted we could see that the complainant was made devoid of using television after spending a huge amount of Rs.1,19,900/- and also made to suffer to run pillar to post to entrust the television for repair. Hence we direct the opposite party to refund the said amount along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.  Cost of Rs.5,000/- is ordered towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party;

a) to refund a sum of Rs.1,19,900/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand and nine hundred only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;

c)  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization. 

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 11th day of October 2022.

 

       Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 18.03.2015 Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party for the purchase of television. Xerox

Ex.A2 24.10.2016 Cash receipt issued by the Service Engineer of the Samsung. Xerox

Ex.A3 07.11.2016 Email from the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 ................. Samsung smart plaza branches address. Xerox

Ex.A5 06.06.2017 Receipt to handover television with the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 07.05.2018 Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party to take action. Xerox

Ex.A7 31.07.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie party. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party;

 

 

Nil

 

 

    Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                          MEMBER I                                     PRESIDENT