V
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 16th day of August, 2010
Filed on 12/04/2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.91/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Binu.K. Thomas 1. The Manager, Home Care
Kattungal House Prime Shop, East of PichuIyer
Kattoor P.O., Near Korthassery Junction, Alappuzha
Alappuzha Authorized dealer of Samsung
(By Adv. V.S.Vinodkumar) Television
2. The Manager, Samsung India
Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower
61 Nehru Place New Delhi –
110 019
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri.Binu.K. Thomas has filed this complaint before the Forum on 12.4.2010 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the case is as follows:- He had purchased a Television set bearing Samsung 58 ME (Samsung CTV 21-SB-ME) from the 1st opposite party, who is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.9,000/- on 13.4.2009. Warranty card was also entrusted with him by the 1st opposite party at the time of purchase. After that the set became defective with so many complaints. He had intimated the complaints of the set to the first opposite party on several times and requested to rectify the defect. As such the first opposite party changed the speaker of the set. But it did not give any effect to the set. Since the entire parts of the set is defective, he requested the first opposite party to change with a new one. He had not obtained any positive steps from the first opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. First opposite party accepted the notice. But they were absent. Notice of 2nd opposite party had returned with endorsement ‘left’. Considering the absence of the both opposite parties, they were declared as exparte by this Forum on 8.6.2010 and proceed with the matter.
3. Considering the allegations, this Forum has raised the following issued for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a new one?
3) Reliefs.
4. Issues 1 to 3:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of this case and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill No.94 issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party at the time of the purchase of the said set. Rs.9,000/- was the price of the set. Ext.A2 is the original warranty card issued by the first opposite party along with the said Television set. The warranty card shows the date of purchase, Model No. and the details of the opposite parties firm. Condition 5 of the warranty states the details of repair and the period of warranty.
5. We have examined the details of this case and perused the documents, given by the complainant in evidence. The complainant had purchased the Television having the specification noted above, from the first opposite party for a sum of Rs.9,000/-. The first opposite party also entrusted the warranty card with the complainant, which shows the conditions. It is alleged that after the purchase and use of the set it became defective and shows several complaints. The first opposite party changed the speaker of the set. But it did not give any effect and the defect continued. Complainant requested the first opposite party to replace the set since the set was defective. But the first opposite party has not cared the request and refused to give a new one instead of the defective set. The first opposite party has not shown any sincere attempt to change the set. The entire action of the first opposite party shows their unfair trade practice. It further shows their grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence. For these they are answerable to the complainant. There is no justification on the side of the first opposite party to refuse to give a new set to the complainant, since the purchased set was defective on several grounds. Since there is grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the side of the first opposite by way of purposeful denial of giving a new set, the first opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. The entire action on the part of the first opposite party shows the lack of bona fides and that they are fully bound to replace the set with a new one. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the allegations of the complainant is to be treated as genuine and the complaint is to be allowed. The complainant is entitled to get a new set from the first opposite party. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we herby direct the first opposite party to give a new Television set having the same price and same specification of the earlier set to the complainant after collecting the defective set from him and pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony, suffering, loss and inconvenience suffered due to the purposeful denial of giving a new set to him in time, since the purchased set was defective and pay sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the first opposite party to comply this order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of August, 2010.
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Purchase Bill No.94
Ext.A2 - Original warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
