BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 15th May 2014
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.123/2013
(Admitted on 10.5.2013)
B.Devdas,
Aged 60 years,
So Kunhappa,
Residing at D.No.22 55 1,
Anugraha Nivas,
Ullal Bail, Ullal,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri Keshav Nandodi)
VERSUS
1. Ms. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
C.R.N. Chambers,
No.13, 3 and 4 Floor,
Kasturba Road, Bangalore 560 001.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory.
2. Sharanya Electronics,
Samsung Authorized Service Center,
D.No.1-S-14-960/H, Manjesh Arcade,
Ashoknagar, Mangalore-575 006.
Represented by its Proprietor.
3. M/s Girias Investment (P) Ltd.,
Nalpad Apsara Chambers,
K.S.Rao Road, Hampankatta,
Mangalore-575 001.
Represented by its
Authorized Signatory. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 : Sri J.Nanda Kishore.)
(Opposite Party No.2 and 3: Exparte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that, he had purchased SAMSUNG LCD T.V. (Television) bearing Model No.40D550 from the Opposite Party No.3 on 9.5.2011 as per Bill No. FS/MLR/58 dated 8.5.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.49,000/-. It is stated that on 10.1.2013, the complainant was viewing the programme suddenly the TV switched off on its own and the monitor display did not appear. Immediately after noticing the said defect in the above T.V. Complainant called the call center and technicians have visited the house but unable to find the real problem in the TV and informed that some spare parts are required for rectifying the defects and promised that they would come next day. Again technician visited the house of the complainant and tried to rectify the defects but they could not rectify the TV and informed that the there is a problem in the panel and thereafter complainant complaint to toll free number and gave a written complaint to Opposite parties regarding defect in the T.V. In spite of the Opposite parties do not rectify the defects and hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to rectify the defect in the TV or in the alternative to replace the defective TV to a new set along with cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.2 and 3 inspite of receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2 and 3. The acknowledgement marked as Court Doc. No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel filed version and stated that in terms of warranty conditions stipulated by the company, the LCD TV purchased by the complainant is having one year warranty from the date of purchase and warranty for the LCD TV commences from 8.5.2011 and the same was closed on 7.5.2012 and the customer is not entitled for any free services/replacement. It is further stated that the warranty given to TV expired long back and there is no material placed to establish that he has registered the complaint within the warranty period and denied the deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr.B.Devdas (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced Ex. C1 to C5. On behalf of Opposite Parties one Mr.Sudheer P Nair, (RW-1) Senior Manager Commercial of Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the SAMSUNG LCD TV purchased on 9.5.2011 from the opposite parties suffers from any defect?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINT NO. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant has purchased SAMSUNG LCD TV (TELEVISION) bearing model NO.40D550 from Opposite Party No.3 on 9.5.2011 as per Bill No.FS/MLR/58 dated 8.5.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.49,900/- as per Ex. C1.
Now the points for consideration is that, the complainant specifically contended that the TV set was purchased by him on 9.5.2011 by paying Rs.49,900/-, but on 10.1.2013 when he was viewing the programme suddenly the TV switched off on its own and the monitor display did not appear and thereafter lodged a complaint to the call center on 10.1.2013 and complaint was registered. Thereafter the technicians of the Opposite Party No.2 visited the complainant’s house to repair the defects but they could not repair it and complainant informed that there is a penal problem and it has to be get it from Delhi and till this date they are not rectify the defect.
Opposite party on the contrary contended that there is no warranty period to repair the TV and denied the deficiency.
However, it could be seen on record that as soon as the complainant found that his TV set is not displaying any programme, immediately lodged a complaint by toll free number 8433827838 to the opposite party. The Opposite Party also in their version took a contention that the subject TV purchased on 8.5.2011 and warranty period was closed on 7.5.2012 and said TV is out of warranty and the customer is not entitled for any free service/replacement. Further the Opposite Party took a contention the complainant was not registered the service request to the Opposite Party in the city of Mangalore. However even though if at all the complainant not lodged a service request but the complainant has issued a legal notice, at least after receipt of the legal notice the opposite party ought to have attended the complaint of the complainant it may be a free service or not free service. We observed that the product in question is manufactured by the Opposite Party whether there is a warranty or not, it is the primary responsibility of the opposite parties to provide service to their customer. But in the instant case, the opposite parties failed to attend the complaint of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
By consideration the above circumstances, we hold that the Opposite parties are liable to attend the complaint of the customers even though there is no warranty because the product is manufactured and serviced by the Opposite Parties since the product is belongs to them.
Generally, if the T.V (Television) has manufacturing defect is to be borne by the manufacturer. That would not mean that, the dealer is absolved from joint and several liabilities. As we know, the manufacturer not deals with the customers directly. Dealer having received the amount, undertaken free service and rectify defect during the warranty do not escape liability towards the manufacturing defect found in the T.V (Television). As we know, the contract through dealer, privity of contract is with him. To ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary by making the payment/replacement to the Complainant initially and then it will be for the dealer to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer. In the instant it is seen on record that since the warranty period is expired the dealer and manufacturer both are responsible to provide service to the customer herein complainant. Because the dealer is marketing the product directly to the customer and therefore, the dealer also responsible for their customer in this case. By considering the above aspect both are jointly and severally liable for the defects found in the TV set to repair, even though there is no warranty.
As far as damages are concerned, we are of the opinion that the Opposite parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to repair the TV. free of cost by extending warranty on failure to do so replace the TV set of the same model or similar model by taking back the defective set. Further pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigations expenses. Compliance/Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally shall repair the TV. free of cost by extending warranty or else replace the TV set of similar features by taking back the defective TV set. And also pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigations expenses. Compliance/Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
In case of failure the aforesaid order within the stipulated time the Opposite parties shall refund the entire amount of the said SAMSUNG LCD TV i.e. Rs. 49,900/- (Rupees Forty nine thousand nine hundred only) along with interest at 12% per annum to the complainant from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of May 2014)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – B.Devdas – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: Copy of the Bill issued by O.P.No.3.
Ex C2: 9.3.2013: Personal copy of the letter sent to Ops by complainant.
Ex C3:Postal receipts 3 in Nos.
Ex C4: 3.4.2013: O/c of Lawyers notice.
Ex C5:Original Postal A/d of legal notice to O.P.(3 in Nos.)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1: Mr.Sudheer P Nair, (RW-1) Senior Manager Commercial of O.P.No.1.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated:15-05-2014 PRESIDENT
