BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SMT.S.SANDHYA RANI,
FEMALE MEMBER.
. . .
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 13 OF 2014
Between:
Padam Seenaiah, S/o Narayana, Age: 41 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o H.No.6-7-377/3, Shivaram Nagar, Nalgonda Town and
District.
…COMPLAINANT.
]
AND
1) M/s Jyothi Electronics, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda Town & Dist.
Represented by its Proprietor-cum-Authorized Dealer.
2) M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector G-3 , Gurgaon-122009,
(Haryana State, India), Represented by its Managing Director
(Customer Care Centre).
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri G.Prakash, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri K.V.Prasad, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1, and Sri G.Jawaharlal, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER, PRESIDENT
1. The Complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.25,500/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from 02/05/2013 till realization, Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and inconvenience to the Complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses and costs.
Contd…2
-2-
2. The facts of the case as disclosed from the complaint are as follows:
The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on 02/05/2013 to purchase a TV, Model No.UA32EH4000R, i.e. LED T.V. 32 inches of Samsung Company. The Complainant decided to buy the said TV and paid Rs.25,500/- towards the price of the TV and Opposite Party No.1 issued a receipt bearing No.525, dated 02/05/2013 as cash paid and received. The Complainant also purchased KEELINE Digital- 30 Stabilizer vide Invoice No.299, for an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the Opposite Party No.1 along with users manual guide of the said company and warranty period of 12 months. The TV was installed at the house of the Complainant on the same day and the family of the Complainant watched the said TV and enjoyed for six months without any problem.
3. On 28/11/2013, the TV of the Complainant suddenly stopped while watching, like visible and invisible dots appeared on the screen like blinking and was difficult to watch properly. The Complainant immediately informed the same to the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 sent his worker to the house of the Complainant on 29/11/2013 at 9-00 a.m. and the said worker took back the TV to their shop at Nalgonda and observed it and expressed that the problem will subside only by changing the inner part and it may cost around Rs.10,000/-, then only the said TV will function as previously. The Complainant objected with Opposite Party No.1 as it is a new TV and was under the warranty period and as such the problem could be rectified by the Opposite Parties only, but the Opposite Party No.1
Contd…3
-3-
expressed his inability and refused to rectify the problem and the Complainant brought back the TV to his house. The Complainant stated that the acts of the Opposite Parties comes under the un-fair trade business by selling sub-standard item, and, therefore, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant also got issued a legal notice on 04/12/2013 asking the Opposite Parties to rectify the problem of the TV or to refund the cost of the item or replace the piece, but the Opposite Party No.1 denied the allegations and has not taken any steps for remedy. As such, the Complainant filed this complaint for the reliefs prayed for.
4. The Opposite Party No.2 filed a written version which was adopted by Opposite Party No.1. In their written version, the Opposite Party No.2 denied all the allegations made by the Complainant and stated that the Television which was purchased from the Opposite Party No.1 on 02/05/2013 is not the product of “Samsung India Electronics Private Limited”, but it is unit of M/s Samsung, Singapore and it had no international warranty. Unless there is international warranty for the product of a different origin, the same cannot be treated as warranty in India. The said fact was also informed to the Complainant vide reply notice, dated 07/01/2014. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties nor manufacturing defect. The Opposite Party No.2 stated that the said TV is a product of foreign country and unless it was covered by international warranty Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd will not repair the same under the warranty. As the product does not fall under the terms and conditions of warranty both domestic and
Contd…4
-4-
international, the repairs will be done on chargeable basis only. Ultimately the Opposite Party No.2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 filed their respective proof affidavits. The Complainant marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. No documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
6. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the
Opposite Parties?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?
3) To what extent?
7. POINT No.1:
The fact that the Complainant purchased a TV, Model No.UA32EH4000R, i.e. LED T.V. 32 inches of Samsung Company from the Opposite Party No.1 and paid Rs.25,500/- towards the price of the TV and Opposite Party No.1 issued a receipt bearing No.525, dated 02/05/2013 as cash paid and received. The Complainant also purchased KEELINE Digital 30, vide Invoice No.299, for an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the Opposite Party No.1 who issued user’s manual guide of the said company and warranty card for a period of 12 months. The TV was installed at the house of the Complainant on the same day and the family of the Complainant watched the said TV and enjoyed for six months without any problem. Subsequently on 28/11/2013, the TV of the Complainant stopped unexpectedly while watching, like visible and invisible dots appeared on the screen like
Contd…5
-5-
blinking and was difficult to watch properly. The Complainant immediately informed the same to the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 sent his worker on 29/11/2013 and the said worker took back the TV to their shop at Nalgonda and expressed that the inner part has to be changed which would cost Rs.10,000/-, then only the said TV will function as previously. The Complainant objected that it is within the warranty period and the problem could be rectified by the Opposite Parties only, but the Opposite Party No.1 denied to rectify the said problem stating that the TV is a product of foreign country and unless it was covered by international warranty Samsung India Electronics Private Limited will not repair the same under the warranty and that the repair will be done on chargeable basis only.
8. The Complainant purchased the TV from Opposite Party No.1 believing that the TV will function properly and to be enjoyed by him and his family members, but the TV was stopped functioning properly after six months. The Opposite Party No.1 declined to replace or repair the TV and the reason given by Opposite Party No.2 is that it can be repaired only on chargeable basis though it was under the warranty period. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 has never stated that the TV comes under international warranty and that the international warranty rules applies does not fall under domestic warranty and the terms and conditions of the warranty does not apply to the TV purchased by the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 declining the request of the Complainant to repair the TV within the warranty period, shows that the Opposite Party No.1 deliberately caused mental agony and, therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the
Contd…6
-6-
Opposite Parties in rendering the service to the Complainant and also by practicing unfair trade business by selling sub-standard TV to the Complainant.
9. POINT Nos.2 & 3:
In the light of our findings on Point No.1, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.25,500/- towards cost of the TV with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony an Rs.2,000/- towards costs, and return the TV to the Opposite Party No.1.
In the result, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to take the TV from the Complainant and deposit in this Forum jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.25,500/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) towards cost of the TV with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint, i.e. 17/01/2014 till realization and a sum Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards deficiency of services and a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 9th day of December, 2019.
FEMALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the Complainant. Affidavit of Opp.Party No.2.
Contd…7
-7-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1: Dt.02/05/2013 Original Receipt for Rs.25,500/-, issued by
Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-2: Dt. LED TV User Manual.
Ex.A-3 Dt.02/05/2013 Original Invoice for Rs.1,500/-, issued by
Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-4 Dt.04/12/2013 O/c of legal notice issued by the counsel
for the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.
Ex.A-5 Dt.04/12/2013 Postal Receipts (2 Nos.).
Ex.A-6 Dt.04/12/2013 Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A-7 Dt.16/12/2013 Reply Notice, issued by the counsel for
Opp.Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex.A-8 Dt. Original Letter issued by Opp.Party No.2
to the Complainant.
For Opposite Parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
