BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.44 of 2014
Date of Instt. 03.02.2014
Date of Decision :15.06.2016
Asha Kiran R/o H.No.74, Friend Colony, Opp.DAV College, Jalandhar-144008.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., (Head Office) Tower C Vipul Tech.Square Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon-1220022.
2. Manager Samsung Service Centre, 365, Shopper Square, Latpat Nagar, Opp.Zimkhana Club, Jalandhar-144001.
3. Angad Enterprises, Opp.Guru Gobind Singh Stadium, Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar-144005
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Satnam Singh Adv., and Sh.CL Sareen Advt., counsels for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for the OPs No.1&2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased Samsung Smart TV from OP No.3 on 9.5.2013 for a sum of Rs.59,900/- and camera for sum a of Rs.5000/-. The OP No.3 also issued warranty card/safety notice to the complainant. The engineers of the OP No.3 installed the TV in the house of the complainant on 9.5.2013. When the complainant switched on the TV, it did not work properly and the complainant immediately reported to OP on the same day i.e. 9.5.2013 vide complaint No.8428293763 dated 9.5.2013. Engineers from the OP visited the house of complainant on different occasions but none could solve the problem of the TV of the complainant. The engineers/ representatives of the OPs took the screen of the smart TV in question to their service centre i.e. “Technical Support Centralite Customer Care” through, “Remote Management System” but they failed to make the applications workable. The OP told the complainant that complainant shall have to buy a Samsung Camera on addition payment of Rs.5000/-. Complainant purchased the Samsung Camera vide invoice dated 3.6.2013 for a sum of Rs.5000/- but inspite of installation of camera, the smart TV of the complainant, is still giving following problems:-
a) Non-availability of the video calling via yahoo messenger and google talk etc on the smart TV.
b) Electric shock at the time of setting of the camera experienced by complainant while fixing it in the smart TV. Besides Samsung Camera on the smart TV was not properly fixed, which may cause fall.
c) Picture of the screen often goes off while the voice of the smart TV remains intact.
d) As and when the smart TV is switched on, its switches on at loud full volume and thus the voice has to be lowered down every time.
e) Absence of the unique voice and motion control technology as was assured to the complainant at the time of sale.
f) Absence of smart touch control to operate the smart TV.
2. The complainant described all the aforesaid defects in the TV to the engineers of the OP but they failed to resolve the problem. In August, 2013 complainant again lodged complaint through email regarding non-functioning of the applications in the TV and this time the OP also gave same complaint number to the complainant but they failed to remove the aforesaid defects nor cooperated with the complainant. Complainant also served legal notice dated 27.11.2013 upon the OPs but even then OP neither repaired the TV of the complainant nor replaced the same nor refunded the price of the TV and camera to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed to direct the OPs to pay the cost of the TV i.e. Rs.59,900/- and cost of camera i.e. Rs.5000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that performance of the TV depends upon the handling of the product and the quality of the cable/dish connection. The problems alleged by the complainant in the complaint are not there in the TV and the same is working properly. The problem of non-availability of video calling via yahoo messenger and google talk on the TV, this model of the TV does not support the aforesaid features at all. This feature is not available in the model the complainant has purchased. As regards the problem of electric shock at the time of setting camera, the OPs submitted that question of electric shock does not arise as the camera is connected to TV through USB port. The camera is made of ABB plastic thus there is no chance of electric shock. The service engineer of the OP visited so many times on the complaint of the complainant but he never witnessed this problem during his inspection. When the smart TV is switched off the volume at that time is noted in its memory and remained the same during last switch off. The service engineer explained this to the complainant that they should slow down the volume of the TV at the time of switching it off. As regards complaint of absence of unique voice and motion control technology as well as smart touch control to operate the smart TV, these features are present and working in the smart TV and the service engineer explained the same to the complainant how to operate the TV. The complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the TV in question. In the absence of any expert evidence, the complaint of manufacturing/inherent defects is not acceptable. There is no inherent/manufacturing defect in the TV which can not be repaired or removed. Therefore, complainant is not entitled for any replacement of the TV or refund of the price of any compensation etc. OPs No.1 & 2 denied other material averments of the complainant.
4. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.3 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
5. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.B alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9, Ex.CX, Ex.CY, Ex.CZ and closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and closed evidence.
7. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Samsung Smart TV from OP No.3 on 9.5.2013 vide invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.59,900/- and camera vide invoice dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.5000/-. The OP No.3 also issued warranty card/safety notice to the complainant. The engineers of the OP No.3 installed the TV in the house of the complainant on 9.5.2013. When the complainant switched on the TV, it did not work properly and the complainant immediately reported to OP on the same day i.e. 9.5.2013 vide complaint No.8428293763 dated 9.5.2013. Engineers from the OP visited the house of complainant on different occasions but none could solve the problem of the TV of the complainant. The engineers/ representatives of the OPs took the screen of the smart TV in question to their service centre i.e. “Technical Support Centralite Customer Care” through, “Remote Management System” but they failed to make the applications workable. The OP told the complainant that complainant shall have to buy a Samsung Camera on addition payment of Rs.5000/-. Resultantly, complainant purchased the Samsung Camera vide invoice dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.5000/- but inspite of installation of camera, the smart TV of the complainant is still giving following problems:-
a) Non-availability of the video calling via yahoo messenger and google talk, etc. on the smart TV.
b) Electric shock at the time of setting of the camera experienced by complainant while fixing it in the smart TV. Besides Samsung Camera on the smart TV was not properly fixed, which may cause fall.
c) Picture of the screen often goes off while the voice of the smart TV remains intact.
d) As and when the smart TV is switched on, its switches on at loud full volume and thus the voice has to be lowered down every time.
e) Absence of the unique voice and motion control technology as was assured to the complainant at the time of sale.
f) Absence of smart touch control to operate the smart TV.
9. The complainant described all the aforesaid defects in the TV to the engineers of the OP but they failed to resolve the problem. In August, 2013 complainant again lodged complaint through email regarding non-functioning of the applications in the TV and this time the OP also gave same complaint number to the complainant but they failed to remove the aforesaid defects nor cooperated with the complainant. Complainant also served legal notice dated 27.11.2013 Ex.C4 upon the OPs through registered post, postal receipts of which are Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 but even then OP neither repaired the TV of the complainant nor replaced the same nor refunded the price of the TV and camera to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of the OPs No.1 & 2 is that performance of the TV depends upon the handling of the product and the quality of the cable/dish connection. The problems alleged by the complainant in the complaint are not there in the TV and the same is working properly. The problem of non-availability of video calling via yahoo messenger and google talk on the TV, this model of the TV does not support the aforesaid features at all. This feature is not available in the model the complainant has purchased. As regards the problem of electric shock at the time of setting camera, the OPs submitted that question of electric shock does not arise as the camera is connected to TV through USB port. The camera is made of ABB plastic thus there is no chance of electric shock. The service engineer of the OP visited so many times on the complaint of the complainant but he never witnessed this problem during his inspection. However, it is noticed that when the smart TV is switched off the volume at that time is noted in its memory and remained the same during last switch off. The service engineer explained this to the complainant that they should slow down the volume of the TV at the time of switching it off. As regards complaint of absence of unique voice and motion control technology as well as smart touch control to operate the smart TV, these features are present and working in the smart TV and the service engineer explained the same to the complainant how to operate the TV. The complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the TV in question. In the absence of any expert evidence, the complaint of manufacturing/inherent defects is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that complainant produced expert report Ex,C9 dated 9.4.2015 at the later stage just to fortify her allegation in the complaint. There is no inherent/manufacturing defect in the TV which can not be repaired or removed. Therefore, complainant is not entitled for any replacement of the TV or refund of the price of the TV or any compensation, etc. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Samsung Smart TV from OP No.3 vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 9.5.2013 for a sum of Rs.59,900/- and camera vide invoice dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.5000/-. The engineers of the OP No.3 installed the TV in the house of the complainant on 9.5.2013. Complainant deposed on oath through her affidavit Ex.CA that when the aforesaid TV was switched on, it did not work properly and matter was reported to the OPs on the same day i.e. 9.5.2013 vide complaint No.8428293763 dated 9.5.2013. Engineers from the OP visited the house of complainant on different occasions but they could not solve the problem. The engineers/ representatives of the OPs took the screen of the smart TV to their service centre i.e. “Technical Support Centralite Customer Care” but they failed to make the applications workable in the aforesaid TV. The engineers of the OP told the complainant that for availability of the video calling on the smart TV, the complainant had to buy a Samsung Camera on addition payment of Rs.5000/-. Complainant purchased the Samsung Camera vide invoice dated 3.6.2013 Ex.C2 for a sum of Rs.5000/- but inspite of installation of camera, the smart TV of the complainant was still giving following problems:-
1.Non-availability of the video calling via yahoo messenger and google talk, etc.
2.The picture of the screen often goes off while the voice of the smart TV remains intact.
3.There was absence of the unique voice and motion control technology as was assured by the OPs to the complainant at the time of sale of T.V. vide brochure Ex.CX and warranty card Ex.C8.
4.There was also absence of smart touch control to operate the smart TV.
12. The complainant described these defects to the engineers of the OPs but they failed to resolve the problem. Complainant lodged so many complaints to the OPs. Complainant raised voice regarding these defects to the OPs i.e. Samsung Company's online service such as Ex.CZ dated 7.6.2013 and the OP admitted and apologized for the inconvenience faced by the complainant. They forwarded the complaint of the complainant to service delivery team but the service delivery team of the OPs i.e. Samsung Company could not deliver the goods and the aforesaid features in the TV of the complainant did not function.
13. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the features pointed out by the complainant are not installed in that smart TV purchased by the complainant. We have gone through the brochure of the smart TV purchased by the complainant i.e. Ex.CX and the user manual (warranty card/safety notice) Ex.C8 and do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the OP. It has been categorically mentioned in the warranty card/safety notice Ex.C8 of the smart TV sold by the OP to the complainant that purchaser can watch latest YouTube videos and the purchaser/customer and his friends' video posts on Facebook and Twitter. The customer can also make video calls to friends by connecting the TV to the camera (sold separately) but inspite of connection of the TV with the camera separately purchased by the complainant, there was non availability of video calls via yahoo messenger and google talk, etc. on the smart TV and this fact has been proved by the complainant. All this fully proves that this feature is not existing in the smart TV sold by the OPs to the complainant despite the fact that the this fact has been duly mentioned in the warranty card/safety notice Ex.C8 issued by the OPs at the time of sale of the aforesaid smart TV, to the complainant. Not only this, the feature of smart interaction is also not available on the smart TV purchased by the complainant from the OP. Whereas this feature has been clearly mentioned in this warranty card/safety notice (user manual) Ex.C8 issued by the OP to the complainant that by using this function, customer can access and control menu options and functions using motions. To use smart interaction feature, TV camera (sold separately) should be connected with the TV but in this TV of the complainant despite connecting the TV camera separately purchased by the complainant with the TV, smart interaction feature does not apply. So, it stands fully proved on record that there is also absence of smart interaction feature in the smart TV sold by the OPs to the complainant despite the facts that this feature has been mentioned in the brochure of the smart TV issued by the OP Ex.CX as well as in the user manual (warranty card/safety notice) Ex.C8 issued by the OP to the complainant at the time of sale of the aforesaid TV to the complainant.
14. Apart from this, the complainant also produced on record the report of TV mechanic expert Palvinder Singh Ex.C9 dated 9.4.2015. Vide this report Ex.C9 he has submitted that he has thoroughly examined and checked the smart TV of the complainant on 9.4.2015 and found the following defects:-
1. Video calling at the given application (google talk) in the said TV does not work at all. The said apparatus also fails to deliver video calling via yahoo messenger, face time, and hangout.
2. Touch control system is not in operation on the said TV. Neither face recognition as a password is working in the said apparatus. Talking smart touch over this apparatus is all wasting the time.
3. The said smart TV does not, at all, respond to any voice command. To give voice command to this apparatus (smart TV) is all wasting time.
4.”Waving the hand feature is there, but as an expert I shall advise to avoid using it because of bad effects of radiation on human body”.
15. The OPs did not examine any expert nor they filed any application to cross-examine the expert witness report of whom Ex.C9 has been produced by the complainant. So, this report of TV mechanic expert remained unrebutted and unchallenged. All this fully proves that the smart TV in question sold by the OPs to the complainant do not have the features, which are mentioned in the brochure as well as user manual (warranty card/safety notice) Ex.C8 issued by the OP to the complainant at the time of sale of aforesaid smart TV to the complainant. So, certainly there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
16. Resultantly, we allow the complaint filed by the complainant with cost and the OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to replace the TV of the complainant with new one having features mentioned in the brochure Ex.Cx and user manual (warranty card/safety notice) Ex.C8 or in the alternative to refund the price of the smart TV and camera purchased by the complainant vide invoices Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9/- % per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
15.06.2016 Member Member President
