IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 39/S/2016.                         DATED : 20.02.2018.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : Sri.Tapan Kumar Barman

COMPLAINANT                       : HIRAK CHAKRABORTY,

  S/o. Sri Biplab Chakraborty, Hindu by religion,

  resident of ‘Radheshyam Apartment’,

  3^rd Floor, Hati More, Near Apolo Pharmacy,

  Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 001,

  Phone- 98323 75581.     

O.Ps.              1.                       : M/S DOORADARSAN,  

   Rishi Aurobinda Road, (Bidhan Road),

   P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling,

   Pin – 734 001.

                        2.                     : M/S SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD.,

                                                              57, S.F. Road, 3^rd Floor, P.O.- Siliguri Town,  

  P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 004,

  Phone : 91-353-2500656/657/2501696.

                                    3.                     : M/S SAMSUNG INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Authorised Service Centre, MANGALAM CARE,  

Hakimpara, Pakurtola More, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin- 734 001.

                                    4.                     : FEDERATION OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY,

  NORTH BENGAL (FOCIN),

  2, Bidhan Road, 2^nd Floor, Opposite Gate No.2 of

  Kanchanjangha Stadium, P.O.- Siliguri,

  Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 001,

  Phone No.0353 2110176.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Santanu Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.2014 the complainant purchased a Samsung LED Panel TV being Model No.UA32F5100 against valuable consideration of Rs.35,900/- from the OP No.1 (Xerox copy of Tax invoice is marked annexure-‘A’).  After two months of said purchase i.e., on

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

24.12.2014 some black spots came in the TV panel for which the complainant had to handover the TV to OP No.3 for repair and the TV panel had been replaced as it appears from the acknowledgement receipt issued by OP No.3 (Annexure-B).  After said repair and replacement of TV panel the complainant again faced some problem of the TV and on 29.07.2015 the TV panel had been replaced by OP No.3 as shown in their acknowledgement receipt (Annexure-C).  On March, 2016 same problem again appeared within the warranty period but none of the OPs took any action to sort out the problem.  The complainant being a consumer of OP No.1 rushed to take necessary step for replacement of the TV as the problem would not be solved as it was some manufacturing defect which is unrepairable.  The complainant asked the OP No.1 to take back the TV but the OP No.1/shop owner narrated that once the goods is sold cannot be taken back and Samsung Company has no liability for the same.  The OP No.1 then made a rough attitude stating to do whatever he can do as the complainant stated that he will seek relief before the Consumer Court.  The complainant then reported the matter to the Secretary, Biswajit Das on behalf of OP No.4, the controlling authority of shops and industry.  On 22.04.2016 the complainant made a written complaint before the OP No.3 for replacement of the TV at the earliest possibility as it was purchased giving a high price from the reputed concern (Annexure-D) but the OP No.3 did not take any action.  The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 are found negligent in the matter of giving proper service and OP No.1 has indulged into unfair trade practice.  Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer to give direction to the OPs for refund of the price of the TV including the guarantee money amounting to a total sum of Rs.35,900/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment, financial loss and mental agony caused to the complainant and other reliefs.        

In this case OP Nos.3 & 4 neither appeared nor contested the case accordingly the case proceeded exparte against the OP Nos.3 & 4.

OP Nos.1 & 2 entered appearance and contested the case by filing two separate written versions wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been stated by OP No.1 that this OP is only engaged in the business of retailing/selling of consumer electronic products of various companies as per the choice of the consumers and after each sale, the consumer is provided with a warranty card issued by the manufacturing company for after sales service, if any, and such service is

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

provided by the company’s, respective service centre.  It has been further stated by the OP No.1 that they have no knowledge about any problem of the TV set after purchase and the complainant never visited the retail shop of OP No.1 for such complaint.  It has been further contended by OP No.1 that he has never been negligent and indulged unfair trade practice and hence the allegations of fraud, cheating and deficiency of service does not arise at all as made by the complainant against the OP No.1 and the present complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

It has been stated by OP No.2 in the written version that complainant purchased the Samsung LED TV being Model No.UA32F5100 from the authorised dealer and during course of its use the complainant raised some purported grievance.  So, as to the functioning of the said TV the service engineer has inspected the said product and found that there were some functional issues which were duly taken care of by the OP No.2 through its service engineer.  The OP No.2 attended all the alleged service request lodged by the complainant and each of the query and grievance of the complainant were duly attended and as such there had been never any kind of deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2.  It has been contended by the OP No.2 that the complainant insisted for free of cost repairing service and/or entire replacement of the TV set which is not at all acceptable and the complainant failed to appreciate that OP No.2 cannot go beyond its warranty terms and policy to meet the complainant’s untoward claims.  However, for the customers satisfaction the OP No.2 offered the complainant towards refund of 80% of the purchase price but the complainant refused to accept the same and demanded for total replacement.  It has been further stated by the complainant that the OP No.2 all along wanted to resolve the issue amicably, but the rigid frame of mind of the complainant did not allow resolving the issue at the threshold.  It has been further contended by the OP No.2 that as there was no consumer dispute between the parties, so the complainant is not entitle to get any relief as prayed for and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.                      

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Xerox copy of the Money Receipt of the OP No.1 dated 21.10.14 as Annexure-‘A’.

2.       Xerox copy of the acknowledgement of the OP No.3 dated 24.12.14 as Annexure-‘B’. 

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

3.       Xerox copy of the acknowledgement of the OP No.3 dated 29.07.15 as Annexure-‘C’.

4.       Xerox copy of the acknowledgement receipt of the OP No.3 dated 24.12.14 as Annexure-‘D’.

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief supported by affidavit.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

OP No.1 has filed examination-in-chief by way of affidavit.

          OP No.1 has filed Written Notes of Argument.

OP No.2 has filed Written Notes of Argument

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

          This is the specific case of the complainant that on 21.10.2014 he purchased a Samsung LED Panel TV being Model No.UA32F5100 against a valuable consideration of Rs.35,900/- from the OP No.1.  After two months of said purchase i.e., on 24.12.2014 some black spots came in the TV panel for which the complainant had to handover the TV to the service centre of Samsung India Ltd. i.e., OP No.3 herein for repairing and replacement of the TV and the TV panel had been replaced by OP No.3 as it appears from the acknowledgement receipt issued by OP No.3 in favour of the complainant.  The further case of the complainant is that after said repair and replacement of TV panel the complainant against faced some problem of the TV and on 29.07.2015 the TV panel had been replaced again by OP No.3 as shown in their acknowledgement receipt (Annexure-C).  Again on March, 2016 some problem appeared in the TV within the warranty period but none of the OPs took any action to sort out the problem.  The complainant being a consumer of OP No.1 rushed to take necessary step for replacement of the TV set as the problem would not be solved as it was some manufacturing defect which is unrepairable but the OP No.1 narrated that once the goods is sold cannot be taken and Samsung Company has no liability for the same.  Complainant then stated the fact to the Secretary, Biswajit Das on behalf of OP No.4, the controlling authority of shops and industry and on 22.04.2016 complainant

Contd.....P/5

-:5:-

made a written complaint before the OP No.3 for replacement of the TV at the earliest possibility but OP No.3 did not take any action. 

In order to substantiate the case the complainant has submitted his examination-in-chief supported by affidavit as PW 1 and certain documents which have been marked as Annexure I-IV respectively.  The OP No.1 also submitted evidence by way of affidavit. 

It is admitted position that on 21.10.2014 the complainant has purchased a Samsung LED panel TV being Model No.UA32F5100 against a valuable consideration of Rs.35,900/- from the OP No.1.  In this regard the complainant has furnished the Tax Invoice which is marked Annexure-A.  It is also not disputed that after two months of said purchase i.e., on 24.12.2014 some defect appeared in the TV and some black spots came in the TV panel for which the complainant had to send the TV set to the service centre of Samsung India Ltd. i.e., OP No.3 Mangalam Care for repairing and replacement of the TV.  From the acknowledgement receipt issued by OP No.3 Mangalam Care we find that the disputed TV was handed over to OP No.3 Mangalam Care by the complainant and on 24.12.2014 the TV was delivered to the complainant after replacement of panel.  It further appears that the TV set of the complainant was again causing disturbance and accordingly he again handed over the TV to the OP No.3 and on 29.07.2015 the TV was returned to the complainant after replacement of panel.  Again we find from the complaint that on March, 2016 some problem again appeared in the TV set for which complainant made contact with the OPs but none of them took any action to sort out the problem.  In this regard, complainant has made a written complaint before the OP No.3 Mangalam Care for replacement of the TV as the problem would not be solved due to manufacturing defect of the TV which is unrepairable but the OP No.3 did not take any initiative for replacement of a new TV set.

It has been contended by OP Nos.1 & 2 that the complainant has not examined the TV in question by any expert.  So, without having the expert’s opinion it cannot be said that there is/was any manufacturing defect of the TV.  But here we find from the above discussion that after two months of purchase of the TV the complainant had to send it to the OP No.3 i.e., the authorised service centre of Samsung India Ltd. for necessary repair/replacement of the TV as there was some black spot appeared in the screen and thereafter the complainant had to send the TV set to the OP No.3 again and on 29.07.2015 the OP No.3 replaced the panel of the TV due to some defect appeared. 

Contd.....P/6

-:6:-

From the Annexure B & C submitted on the side of the complainant it is clear that within the warranty period the complainant had to send the TV set to the OP No.3 Service Centre as some major defect were found at the time of using of the TV.  So, there is no hesitation to hold that there was some manufacturing defect of the TV set for which the complainant had to send the TV set to the OP No.3 once again within the warranty period for its repair/replacement and OP No.3 though repaired the TV on two occasions but the defect could not be removed and the TV set again started to show some disturbance on March, 2016 for which the complainant had to knock the door of the OPs for replacement of the TV but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  The OPs had taken the view that once the goods is sold to the customer they have no liability for the same if any defect appears and accordingly in spite of repeated reminder they did not think it necessary to take initiative to remove the defect of the TV on urgent basis and thus the OPs compelled the complainant to remain with a defective television within two months of its purchase and well within the warranty period.  Such conduct of the OPs clearly shows that there was utter negligence and deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  It is necessary to mention here that even after scrutiny and servicing of the television by the engineer of OP No.3 on two occasions, the defect of the televisions could not removed.  So, there is no hesitation to hold that due to some manufacturing defect of the television the engineer of the OP Samsung India Ltd. could not remove the problem.  Here we find that the complainant purchased the television being Samsung LED Panel TV Model No.UA32F5100 at a price of Rs.35,900/- on 21.10.2014.  Samsung Electronics India is a reputed company having goodwill in the market and relying on the goodwill and reputation of the OP No.2 the complainant invested his hard earned money and expected to get a good quality of television set.  But here we find within two months of purchase some black spot came in the TV panel for which the complainant had to send the TV to OP No.3 for repairing and replacement of the TV and again the complainant sent the TV to the OP No.3 and the TV was repaired for the second time but the defect was not removed.  The engineers of OP No.3 could not able to remove the defect of the television.  But in spite of repeated knocking of the doors of the OPs the complainant did not get any satisfactory response.  It is not expected that a television purchased at a price of Rs.35,900/- would be repaired once again within the warranty period.  So, considering the price of the television and also considering the facts and

Contd.....P/7

-:7:-

circumstances of the case with regard to the materials and evidence of the parties on record, and also considering the reported decision cited on the side of the parties we are of the view that the case of the complainant is established by sufficient cogent evidence.  It is also established that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs as we find that he purchased the disputed TV set at a valuable consideration of Rs.35,900/- against Tax Invoice.  It is also established that there was utter negligency and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 to the complainant.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to refund of the purchase price of Rs.35,900/- from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 and he is further entitled to get Rs.30,000/- for harassment, financial loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant.          

In the result, the case succeeds.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.39/S/2016 is allowed on contest in part against the OP Nos.1 & 2 and allowed exparte against OP No.3 with cost and dismissed exparte against OP No.4 as no relief sought for against him.

The complainant is entitled to get refund of the purchase price of Rs.35,900/- from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 against return of the disputed TV being Model No.UA32F5100 to the OPs.

The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment, financial loss, mental pain and agony from the OP Nos.1, 2   & 3.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to refund an amount of Rs.35,900/- to the complainant as the purchase price of the television within 45 days from the date of this order. 

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for harassment, financial loss, mental pain and agony within 45 days from the date of this order.

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law.    

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.