2. Samsung Electronics India Private Limited,

    Regd Office, 40-1-48, Sri Krishna Bhavan,

    3^rd floor, Opp hotel D.V.Manor, Tikkle Road,

    Vijayawada.                                                  …Opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24-08-11 in the presence of Sri E. Rama Rao, advocate for complainant and of                Sri M.V. Subba Rao, advocate for 1^st opposite party,                         Sri K. Hari Babu, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of LCD TV of same model, Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental physical and financial suffering and for costs.

1. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant purchased LCD TV of Model No.22B480 from the 1^st opposite party on 19-10-09 for Rs.17,000/- and it was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.   The said TV has warranty for a period of 12 months.  One month after purchase, the said TV was not properly displaying.   The 1^st opposite party did not respond to the grievance of the complainant though brought to notice.   The complainant approached the authorized servicing centre of the                    2^nd opposite party for want of response from the 1^st opposite party.   The employees of service centre inspected the said TV and informed that the problem was due to manufacturing defect.   The complainant got issued notice to the opposite parties on 24-09-10 demanding replacement of TV.   The 1^st opposite party though received notice did not give reply.   The notice addressed to the 2^nd opposite party returned as ‘left’.   The complainant suffered a lot mentally and physically due to the above conduct of the opposite parties.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party sold TV to the complainant for consideration and delivered warranty card.  The technical staff are available with the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party is not at all negligent.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     The contention of the 2nd opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the 2^nd opposite party’s head office was situated at New Delhi.    The warranty period of 12 months is subject to terms and conditions contained in it.   The complainant did not approach the 2^nd opposite party at all and as such the complaint is premature.   The complainant may be directed to approach the competent authorized service centre to technically evaluate the defect. The 2^nd opposite party did not receive any notice.    There was no manufacturing defect in the television.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-7 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 and B2 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

6.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are: 

1. Whether the TV is defective?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
4. Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
5.   To what relief?

7.   POINT No.4:-    The complainant purchasing of the TV set in question for Rs.17,000/- from the 1^st opposite party and the                      1^st opposite party giving  warranty is not in dispute.  Jurisdiction clause was not mentioned in Ex.A-2 warranty.   The cause of action arose at Guntur where the complainant purchased the television in question.  Even otherwise part of cause of action arose at Guntur where the complainant purchased TV.  Therefore the contention of the 2^nd opposite party regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is devoid of merit.  Hence we opine that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  

8.   POINTS 1 & 2:-    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that it is the service centre of the manufacturing company who has to attend repairs.   The said contention of the 1^st opposite party is devoid of merit as it issued warranty on behalf of the manufacturing company and the 1^st opposite party is an agent of the manufacturer of the said television set.   Therefore the 1^st opposite party is also liable to answer the claim of the complainant.   During the course of arguments the              2^nd opposite party filed Ex.B-1 i.e, copy of customer’s service record card contending that it inspected the TV on 19-08-10.   It is not the case of the 2nd opposite party at all as seen from the version filed by it on 07-04-11.  Therefore reliance cannot be placed on Ex.B-1 service record card.   The version of the 1^st opposite party impliedly revealed that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party complaining about the defect in the TV.  It can therefore be inferred that TV  purchased under Ex.A-1 gave trouble to the complainant.   No prudent person will go on complaining if the set functions properly. We therefore answer these points against the opposite parties.  

9.  POINT No.3:-   The complainant claimed Rs.50,000/- compensation for giving defective TV.  The cost of TV set is Rs.17,000/- only.  It is not the case of the complainant that he purchased another TV for consideration.  A compensation cannot be a windfall but it has to be just and reasonable.   Awarding Rs.2,000/- towards compensation is just and proper.   Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

10.  POINT No.5:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to repair the TV in question free of charge within four weeks.  
2. The opposite parties are directed to replace the TV of same model if repair is not possible within further two weeks.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation.
4. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

5.   The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of        six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 29th day of August, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:      

                                                                                      PRESIDENT