Complaint filed on 26.02.2009<br /> Complaint Disposed on 15.06.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> Dated: 15th of JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI. S.S.NAGARALE PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M.YASHODHAMMA MEMBER<br /> SRI. A.MUN IYAPPA. MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.702/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS Sri. P.R.Kulkarni,<br /> S/o R.K.Kulkarni,<br /> Aged about 49 years,<br /> R/at No, II Floor,<br /> 14th Cross, 25th Main,<br /> J.P.Nagar, I-Phase,<br /> Bangalore – 560078.<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES M/s Samsung India Ltd., <br /> No.9, 1st Phase,<br /> 27th Main Ring Road,<br /> BTM Layout,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) to replace the old LCD Panel of Samsung TV model or to refund the amount of Rs.53,100/- with damages of Rs.10,000/- along with interest and costs on the allegations of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 1. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> On 13.03.07 the complainant purchased one Samsung TV model No.LA32R7BM/XTL LCD Panel from dealers of the OP, M/s Devi International, No.14, 2nd Floor, 14th Cross, 25th Main, 1st Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore – 78. On the day of purchase of the LCD it has poor visibility the problem started with dotted line. The Complainant felt same as transmission related problem and will automatically improve but same has extended. Immediately complainant reported the same to the OP. The Technician of OP has inspected the LCD Panel and said the damage is due to mishandling and the same has to be replaced. For that OP demanded Rs.32,855/- to replace the LCD Panel. The copy of the invoices, quotation and correspondences are produced. OP did not agree to set right the problem noticed by the complainant. In that regard the complainant wrote letter to OP on 25.11.08 calling for OP to replace the LCD Panel. In spite of receipt of the letter OP neither replied nor complied. Due to this act of the OP complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances is advised to file this complaint & sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> On appearance of OP filed its version mainly contending that on receipt of the complaint, the technician of the OP visited the complainant premises on 16.06.08 & found that LCD TV Panel has crack on the top right hand corner of the screen. This appears to have been caused by the external object. The Engineer has taken photographs but OP has failed to produced the same. OP is not liable for physical damage & is not covered by warranty and the same is not a manufacturing defect. Hence OP gave on estimate of Rs.32,855/- to replace the damaged LCD Panel of the TV. Warranty period is over. When OP did not agree to replace the LCD Panel at free of cost, complainant has filed this complaint. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 2:- Whether OP can be directed to replace the LCD Panel<br /> free of costs?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence & the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- As per final order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not in dispute that on 13.03.07 complainant purchased one Samsung TV Model No.LA32R7BM/XTL LCD Panel from the dealers of the OP. It is also not in dispute that OPs Technician inspected the same and demanded Rs.32,855/- to replace the damaged LCD Panel of the LCD TV. OP has not produced any evidence or documents or the affidavit of an Engineer who visited the complainant’s house. No affidavit of the Technician is filed. Hence defence of the OP is not acceptable. It is the duty and obligation of the OP to replace the defective LCD Panel. Since it is in warranty period. It is a manufacturing defect. When complainant <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> refuse to pay Rs.32,855/-, OP refused to replace the LCD Panel. In the open Court when complainant was asked to only for replacement of LCD Panel he agreed and not insisted for the entire TV Set. <br /> <br /> Since the Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation, it is enacted to protect and safeguard the better interest of the consumers and consumer is considered to be a king. Protection of his interest and rights are paramount importance. So OP being a big reputed company it should not take unnecessary objections. The OP Company should see that consumers are satisfied with their products. In the circumstances we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to replace defective LCD Panel with a brand new LCD Panel immediately to the satisfaction of the complainant. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. This order shall complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />