Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/24/2015

D.Kumaresan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Challenger Computer, and Others - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 30.12.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.03.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B., PGDCLP.                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.24/2015

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 07^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

                               

D. Kumaresan,

No.294/A, 19^th Street,

Union Carbide Colony,

Kodungaiyur,

Chennai – 600 118.                                                       .. Complainant.                           

..Versus..

1. The Manager,

Challenger Computer,

No.839 A, Anna Salai,

 Heera Market, 1^st Floor,

(Opp. to Canara Bank),

Chennai – 600 002.  

 

2. The Manager,  

Sunbeam Electronics,

(Samsung Authorized Service Centre),

5D/1, SIDCO Main Road,

(Near T.N.E.B.),

Chennai – 600 118.

 

3. The Manager,

Regional Office,

Samsung India Electronics Limited

No.24, Rajasekaran Street,

Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

         

For the complainant                               :  Party in person

1^st Opposite party                                  :  Exparte

Counsel for the Opposite parties 2 & 3 :  M/s. V.V. Giridhar & others

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to replace the complainant’s monitor and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards punitive compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is a physically handicapped man who purchased 21.5 (inch) Samsung LED monitor on 10.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.8,400/- with the warranty of 3 years.  The complainant submits that he kept the monitor for some days without using.  Thereafter while using the monitor, the vision is very clear when looking straight and when looking the monitor in slight angle, the vision is negative.  Hence on 15.10.2013, the complainant sent his friend to the challenger computer shop and enquired about the same for which, the opposite party directed to contact Samsung Customer Care.  The complainant contacted Samsung Customer care through phone on 13.06.2014 and informed the following two problems:

 1. Screen Negative Vision

2. Power problem.

On 14.06.2014, the Engineer from the Samsung Authorised Service Centre came and inspected the monitor and rectified the power problem.  Regarding the screen problem, the Engineer rectified the same by changing the position on the next day.  On the same day on 16.06.2014 at about 7.15 p.m., another service Engineer came and inspected the screen but ended in vain.  On 17.06.2014, a Service Engineer from Sunbeam Electronic came and told that for due service and rectification the monitor shall be taken to the service centre and taken away the monitor and adaptor.  On 18.06.2014, the complainant received a phone call from the opposite party that all the defects were rectified and instructed to take delivery of the same.  Since the complainant is a physically challenged person, he along with his friend went to the service station and saw the monitor as such.   The Service Engineer also told the complainant to come on tomorrow.  On 20.06.2014, the complainant received a call from the service centre for taking delivery of the monitor.  While seeing the monitor, the defects were not rectified.   The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of notice the 1^st opposite party has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the 1^st opposite party was set exparte for non appearance.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 2 & 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 2 & 3 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that the complainant purchased Samsung LED Monitor (21.5 inch) bearing Model No.LS22B150NS/XL which is a business view monitor.   The opposite parties 2 & 3 state the model purchased by the complainant was designed in such a manner that the monitor can be viewed only from the straight angle.  If it is viewed from the side angle or any other angle, the image may be tend to look like a negative shade.   In order to prevent other 3^rd parties from viewing the monitor, such design is specific for better use of the business people and there is no default or manufacturing defect in the monitor.   The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that there is no problem in the monitor purchased by the complainant which is functioning as per the standard and specifications and design which was informed to the complainant in detail.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 state that immediately after booking, the complaint through the customer care, the Service Engineers attended the alleged problem in the monitor and found out that there is no problem in the monitor purchased by the complainant.  But as a good gesture, the Service Engineers changed the screen of the monitor which can be viewed only in straight angle.  The alleged vision of straight angle and side angle are imaginary.  The complainant wantonly and deliberately refused to take back the monitor after due service.  There is no manufacturing defect or default in the monitor purchased by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 2 & 3.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the replacement of monitor as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.  The complainant and the opposite parties 2 & 3 filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the Counsels also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a physically handicapped man who purchased 21.5 (inch) Samsung LED monitor on 10.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.8,400/- as per Ex.A1, bill with the warranty of 3 years.  Ex.A3 is the warranty conditions.  Further the contention of the complainant is that he kept the monitor for some days without using.  Thereafter while using the monitor, the vision is very clear when looking straight and when looking the monitor in slight angle, the vision is negative.  Hence on 15.10.2013, the complainant sent his friend to the challenger computer shop and enquired about the same for which, the opposite party directed to contact Samsung Customer Care.  The complainant contacted Samsung Customer care through phone on 13.06.2014 and informed the following two problems:

 1. Screen Negative Vision

2. Power problem.

On 14.06.2014, the Engineer from the Samsung Authorised Service Centre came and inspected the monitor and rectified the power problem.  Regarding the screen problem, the Engineer rectified the same by changing the position on the next day.  On the same day on 16.06.2014 at about 7.15 p.m., another service Engineer came and inspected the screen but ended in vain.  On 17.06.2014, a Service Engineer from Sunbeam Electronic came and told that for due service and rectification the monitor shall be taken to the service centre and taken away the monitor and adaptor.  Ex.A5 is the Customer Service Record Card.   On 18.06.2014, the complainant received a phone call from the opposite party that all the defects were rectified and instructed to take delivery of the same.  Ex.A13 is the proof of delivery.  Since the complainant is a physically challenged person, he along with his friend went to the service station and saw the monitor as such.   The Service Engineer also told the complainant to come on tomorrow.  On 20.06.2014, the complainant received a call from the service centre for taking delivery of the monitor.  While seeing the monitor, the defects were not rectified.  The opposite party told that the computer model purchased by the complainant is of a business type and it has been designed in such a manner and should view the screen straight and as well as in angle and there is no manufacturing defect.   Such special model is manufactured in order to avoid the usage by other people and to keep secrecy.   The complainant also has not specifically pleaded and proved any manufacturing defect in this case.  Equally, for what reason the complainant is claiming replacement and compensation of huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is not explained. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 would contend that admittedly, the complainant purchased Samsung LED Monitor (21.5 inch) bearing Model No.LS22B150NS/XL which is a business view monitor.   The allegation of the complainant is that the said monitor can be viewed only from the straight angle and if it is viewed from the side angle, negative shades are appearing.  The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 contended that the model purchased by the complainant was designed in such a manner that the monitor can be viewed only from the straight angle.  If it is viewed from the side angle or any other angle, the image may be tend to look like a negative shade.   In order to prevent other 3^rd parties from viewing the monitor, such design is specific for better use of the business people and there is no default or manufacturing defect in the monitor.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that there is no problem in the monitor purchased by the complainant which is functioning as per the standard and specifications and design which was informed to the complainant in detail. The complainant without understanding the concept of the monitor design issued notice and filed this case.  In such a colloquial manner stating himself as a physically challenged person. 

8.     Further the contention of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that immediately after booking, the complaint through the customer care, the Service Engineers attended the alleged problem in the monitor and found out that there is no problem in the monitor purchased by the complainant.  But as a good gesture, the Service Engineers changed the screen of the monitor which can be viewed only in straight angle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3.  Till this time, the complainant has not made out any defect in the monitor.  The alleged vision of straight angle and side angle are imaginary.  The complainant wantonly and deliberately refused to take back the monitor after due service.  There is no manufacturing defect or default in the monitor purchased by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 & 3 also.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties  1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall service the monitor and the complainant shall take delivery of the monitor after due certificate by a qualified System Engineer and the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall pay the cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to service the monitor and the complainant shall take delivery of the monitor after due certificate by a qualified system Engineer and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamount shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 07^th day of March 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of bill
		Copy of Quick Setup Guide
		Copy of warranty conditions
		Copy of the photo in the box
		Copy of customer Service Record card
		Copy of the 1st letter of the complainant to the 3rd opposite party
		Copy of postal receipt
		Copy of acknowledgement card
		Copy of Regional Office, Chennai
		Copy of Sunbeam Electronic
		Copy of Challenger Computer
		Copy of Postal Tracking
		Copy of Challenger Computer (RT235112405IN)
		Copy of Regional Office: Chennai (RT235112422IN)
		Copy of Sunbeam Electronic (RT235112419IN)
		Head Office (RT235222436IN)
		Copy of reply from the Sunbeam Electronic, the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of the 2nd letter of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of postal receipt
		Copy of the postal acknowledgement card
		Sunbeam Electronic, the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of Postal tracking
		Sunbeam Electronic, the 2nd opposite party(ET037515335IIN)
		Regional Office : Chennai (ET037515361TN)
		Registered Office New Delhi (ET037515358IN)
		Head Office Gurgaon (ET037515344IN)
		Copy of the 3rd letter of the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of postal receipt
		Copy of acknowledgement card
		Regional office : Chennai
		Registered Office New Delhi
		Copy of Postal Tracking
		Sunbeam Electronic (RT234070598IN)
		Regional Office: Chennai (RT234070607IN)
		Registered Office New Delhi (RT234070575IN)
		Head Office Gurgaon (RT234070584IN)
		Copy of Challenger computer - reminder letter
		Copy of postal receipt
		Copy of postal tracking
		Samsung Customer care – Xerox copy
		Copy of envelop cover – Samsung Customer Care
		Compact disc

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 2 & 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                      PRESIDENT