Complaint filed on: 13-06-2016                                                      Disposed on: 09-12-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.81/2016

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Mohan Kumar.B.O,

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Nilaya, near water tank, Baddihalli, TUDA layout, Kyathasandra Post, Ring Road, Tumkur-04 

(In-Person)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Mahalakshmi Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mahalakshmi Central, BH Road, Ashok Nagar, Tumkur-02
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipula Tech Square Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-02

(OP-No.1- by authorized representative)

(OP No.2-by Advocate Sri.Himanand.D.C)

ORDER

SMT.GIRIJA, LADY MEMBER  

This complaint has filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to replace the defective TV supplied by the OPs along with litigation costs of Rs.5,000=00 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000=00 for mental agony.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant has purchased a Samsung TV with model No.UA32J5300  and serial No.OA3A3PAGA00125 from the 1^st OP on 25-10-2015 vide invoice No.R1501439 dated 21-10-2015 for a sum of Rs.35,000=00. The said TV was delivered and installed by the technician of the dealer and the said TV is under warranty period of 12 months.

          The complainant further submitted that, the said TV was not displaying clear picture at the left bottom side of the TV from day one. The complainant has contacted the seller and requested him to set-right the TV several times and the seller told that, the problem is due to defective cable signal. The complainant repeatedly complained to the TV seller and they assured that they would send a technician to repair the TV, but they never send anyone. On 3-5-2016 in the same corner, the TV started showing a picture as if it is cracked when switched on and the same was informed to the seller again and the seller set a technician to check the problem. The technician said that, the TV is damaged inside as a result it is showing a cracked image when switched on. Now the seller has blamed the complainant that the complainant has damaged the TV. The complainant has not moved the TV from the place of installation. The Seller is taking undue advantage and demanding huge sums of money to repair it, although the TV is still under warranty period. The seller has supplied and installed the defective TV to the complainant.

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant requested the seller to rectify the defect in TV and initially the seller blamed the defect in cable service, thereafter the complainant got proper clarification and proof from the cable operator. Now the seller is told that, the complainant has damaged the TV and demanding huge sums of money to repair it. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. In response to the notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed separate objection.

4. In the objection, the 1^st OP pleaded that, at the time of sale on 25-10-2015, the product was switched on and displaced live by the 1^st OP’s shop boy Sri.Urkundappa in front of the complainant to his satisfaction and then the complainant himself acknowledged the receipt of the material in good conditions on dealer copy of invoice. Only after acknowledgement of receipt of the material in good condition, the 1^st OP has launched request for wall mounting/installation/demonstration of the product with 2^nd OP M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd at their dealer support centre through phone on 26-10-2015 wide their service order No.4203460582 and customer ID No.8443053495.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, wall mounting/installation/demonstration by 2^nd OP’s representative was done on 26-10-2015 or a later date. It means that there was no such defect at the time of wall mounting/installation/ demonstration; otherwise the complainant would have rejected the product even at that time. The complainant did not provide any reference numbers and dates of complaints launched by him before May-2016 even though Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd provides the caller a complaint number for his complaint. All the complaints and communications from the complainant are during and after May 2015 that is more than six months after the date of product prochain and there is no complaint from the complainant before May 2016.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, whereas the complainant contacted the 1^st OP first time on 22-5-2016. The complainant visited the 1^st OP’s shops stated that, the TV display showing cracked pictures on particular spot since 2-3 weeks but no such cracks visible when it is switched off. The problem is from 1^st week of May 2016. The service engineer rejected his warranty claim sighting reason “physical damage s not covered under warranty”. The complainant is not willing to pay that much amount to the 2^nd OP as cost of new display panel. The 1^st OP contacted the 2^nd OP through telephone on 31-5-2016. The response given by the 2^nd OP that, “Display panel of the TV is physically damaged and such case is not covered under warranty. Hence, repair will be done on chargeable basis only and the customer will have to pay Rs.125,560=00 as cost of a new display panel to the 2^nd OP’s authorized service partner at Tumkur.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the defective part in question “Display panel of the TV” was not defective/damaged from the date of product sale, but was defective/damaged since 1^st week of May 2016, that it after more than six months from the date of product sale.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, rule of the 1^st OP is limited to the delivery of intended product in good condition to the customer, after sale support is taken care by manufacturer through their service network. This is communicated to the complainant at the time of product sale in the sale invoice as “Warranty on goods as per terms and conditions of Samsung IEPL through Samsung Service Centres”. The product warranty card reads as “Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd guarantees to the purchaser that this product carries a warranty for the period mentioned below, commencing from the date of purchase. The company will repair free of charge any part or parts of the product if the defect is due to faulty material or workmanship” For colours Television warranty period is mentioned as 12 months. Further, under the head warranty conditions it reads as “Repairs under warranty period shall be carried out by company authorized person only. The details of service centers/support required are available at the company website or in the centralized helpline. The 2^nd OP has taken sole responsibility of the warranty on product, as the 1^st OP is a dealer by their self are not responsible for providing warranty.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the 1^st OP was never requested to rectify the defects and also never demanded any amount from the complainant for repair. The dispute on the matter of whether the product is not performing due to physical damage or due to a technical defect is solely between the complainant and the 2^nd OP, and the 1^st OP is not a party in that dispute. The sale invoice date is wrongly quoted by the complainant as 21-10-2016 instead of actual date 25-10-2015. The allegation of defect and deficiency on the part of the 1^st OP are false and untenable in law. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

5. In the version, the 2^nd OP submitted that, the complaint is frivolous, vexatious as well as speculative in nature filed with band intention to make unlawful gain at the cost of the OP and nothing else.

The 2^nd OP further submitted that, the company has provided one year conditional warranty to TV purchased by the complainant. The warranty is provided only towards product performance. That apart the customer is not entitled warranty benefit in all the cases. To avail warranty benefit during warranty period, the customer has to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in the warranty card. The complainant’s TV is within warranty period is true to that extent only, even though the complainant’s TV is within warranty period still the complainant is not eligible warranty benefit.

The 2^nd OP further submitted that, in clause-7 of the warranty condition, the company has specifically stated warranty is not applicable in certain cases. The said clause is reads as under:

“Clause-7- in case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the authorized service centre personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargeable basis only”.

As per above pre-conditions, it clearly establishes that, the customer cannot demand free service as well as free replacement of parts in all cases. It is further submitted that, the complainant himself has produced copy of the warranty card as well as relied on the said document. However, intentionally the complainant did not high light the said clause.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted that, after purchase of the said TV, the service personnel conducted demo to educate the customer about operating system of the product. On successful completion of demo work, the representative has taken endorsement from the customer about completion of demo work as well as work satisfaction. If any issue is found at the time of demo, the sercvie engineer will report the said fact to the company for further action. That apart if any issue is found as per allegation of the complainant, why he has endorsed job satisfaction at that point of time is not explained. In fact there is no whisper in the complaint about conducting demo as well as endorsement made by the complainant.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted that, the complainant TV is physically damaged after 7 months from the date of demo. As per clause-7 of the warranty condition, any physical damage is found; the said issue is outside the scope of the free replacement of part. As such the service centre declined to provide free replacement of broken panel. Since the replacement of panel is outside the scope of free service, the sercvie centre issued quotation for replacement of panel on 10-5-2016. However, the complainant did not accept the repair estimate. On the contrary the complainant demanded free replacement of TV panel contending his TV is still under warranty. Since the customer has refused to bear the actual cost as per quotation, the service engineer could not complete the sercvie issue in time and not due to any other reasons.

          The complainant has failed to produce any evidence to believe his version is true and correct and as well as approached the service centre immediately to resolve the alleged issue. In view of production of repair estimate as well as photograph it clearly demonstrated the complainant never faced any issue immediately after completion of demo work. In fact, the company is not aware as to how the customer uses the product after purchase.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted that, due to adamant of the complainant in not accepting his mistake as well as demanded free replacement of panel, the service engineer declined to complete the service work in time, since the said demand is beyond company normal warranty policy, as such question of existence of deficiency in service does not arise. As per repair estimate given during May 2016, the TV is repairable, when the TV is repairable as well as, when the complainant declined to pay the actual cost for replacement of part. The complainant has failed to establish that his TV is un-repairable and he is entitled for the relief claimed in his complaint. Since the complaint is frivolous as well as vexatious in nature, it is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost by invoking Section 26 of CP Act. Hence the complaint be dismissed with cost.

6. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP No.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents along with the complaint. The 1^st OP has produced documents, which were marked as annexure-R1 to R6. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.   

7. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

8. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the affirmative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below

REASONS

          9. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objections of the OPs and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, on 25-10-2015 the complainant had purchased the Samsung TV model No.UA32J5300 and serial No.QA3A3PAGA00125 from the 1^st OP for Rs.35,100=00. The said TV is having 12 months warranty from the date of purchase. To substantiate this fact, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and also produced Tax invoice copy and warranty card issued by the 1^st OP. This evidence of complainant remains unchallenged, to disbelieve this evidence of complainant, there is no rebuttal evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant.

10. It is further case of complainant that, after purchase, the said TV had installed by the 1^st OP and the TV was not displaying clear picture at the left bottom side of the TV from the day one. In this regard, the complainant has approached the 1^st OP to set-right or replace the display panel of the TV, but the 1^st OP has not set-right problem of the TV. On 31-5-2015 the complainant sent email to the 1^st OP to set-right or replace the display panel of the TV, but the 1^st OP has failed to set-right or replace the display panel of the TV, till this day. To substantiate this fact, the complainant in his affidavit evidence reiterated the same and also produced the email correspondences.

11. On the other hand, the defence taken by the OPs is that, the company provides one year conditional warranty. The warranty is provided towards product performance only. The complainant is not entitled warranty benefit in all the cases. To avail warranty benefit during warranty period, the customer has to comply the terms and conditions stipulated in their warranty card. The complainant’s TV is within warranty period to that extent only. The complainant’s TV is physically damaged after 7 months from the date of demo. As per clause 7 of the warranty condition any physical damage is found, the said issue is outside the scope of the free replacement of part. The service centre has issued a quotation for replacement of panel, the complainant did not accept the repair estimate and the complainant has refused to bear the actual cost of the quotation, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

12. On making careful scrutiny of the case of complainant on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence of complainant, it is no doubt true that, the complainant had purchased the TV on 25-10-2015 from the 1^st OP and the said TV was having warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The complainant and his family members have used the said TV for about 6 months & thereafter the complainant started getting problem of the TV set i.e. display panel problem. The complainant has approached the 1^st OP being the service center of Samsung Indian Electronics Pvt. Ltd with respect to displaying lines on screen and on being inspected OPs learnt that there is a problem in the display and needs to be replaced, but the 1^st OP promised to replace the display panel of the TV, but the same has not been replaced by the 1^st OP. The complainant has requested many times to replace the same, but no such sincere effort was made by the OPs. The act of OPs in not replacing the TV display panel within warranty period it amounts to negligence and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in supplying the faulty product. So, it is just and proper to direct the OPs to replace the Samsung TV with model No.UA32J5300 and serial No.OA3A3PAGA00125 to the complainant. The OPs have not given proper service nor replaced the defective TV of complainant and on account of the said act of OPs, the complainant has been put to both physical and mental harassment by OPs for no fault him. So we feel it proper to award a nominal compensation of Rs.5,000=00 and litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 from OPs and not compensation as prayed in the complaint and accordingly we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed.    

The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the Samsung TV with model No.UA32J5300 and serial No.OA3A3PAGA00125 to the complainant, failing which, the OP No.1 and 2 shall pay the above said TV amount of Rs.35,100=00 along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint to till the date of realization.  

The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000=00 to the complainant.

The OP No.1 to 2 are jointly and severally further directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

This order is to be complied by the OP No. 1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 9^th day of December 2016).

LADYMEMBER                       MEMBER                       PRESIDENT