District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2011
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 30/01/2009
CC No.11/2009
T.Balan, IRTS
S/o.V.Kundan
‘Souparnika’
Santhi Nagar
Industrial Estate (P.O)
Puduppariyaram
Palakkad – 678 731. - Complainant
(By Adv.S.T.Suresh)
Vs
1. M/s.Das Agencies
No.7/10(1) College Road
Palakkad, Kerala.
(By Adv.R.Manikandan)
2. The Managing Director
M/s.Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
Corporate Office
7th Floor, IFCI Tower
61 Nehru Place
New Delhi – 110 019. - Opposite parties
(By Adv.M.J.Vince)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER
Brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant purchased a Samsung Colour Television set Model SAM-M-20-25 (MAVX-Serial No.046137 AY200451W) from 1st opposite party on 27/08/2005. He paid Rs.16,500/- to the above television set including tax. At the time of purchase an offer of 4 years warranty was given vide guarantee card No.54423 dtd.27/08/2005. Extended warranty for a period of 3 years was also offered during the period for purchase made between 08/08/05 and 20/09/05. Due to attractive offers from the company through various media and believing the guarantee offers, complainant was opted to purchase the above product. Thereafter the television set was went out of order from the month of September 2007. The complainant contacted 1st opposite party at Palakkad. There was no response from the 1st opposite party for many days. Then the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 during the month of December 2007. After prolonged effort one person came from the service centre and set was repaired. But within one month it was again went out of order. Immediately the matter was brought to the notice of opposite party. They sent one person. He opened the set and the equipment kept as it is and went away. In spite of repeated requests the defect was neither rectified nor the set got replaced. The complainant was continuously contacting the service centre at Delhi and Palakkad. Later a person from Palakkad service centre informed over phone that an amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be paid for repair. Thereafter nobody attended the system till date. Since there was no response either from the customer service centre at Palakkad or Delhi office the complainant contacted both offices again and again. The warranty was valid upto the month of September 2009. This is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. There is no response for the notices sent on 24/11/2008. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to
1. Pay back Rs.16,500/- the amount collected as price of the television set purchased with 12% interest from the date of purchase till payment,
2. Pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship, deprivation of entertainment facility and other inconvenience caused to the complainant and
3. Pay entire costs of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The 1st opposite party is only a dealer. The 1st opposite party stated that the T.V set became defective because of the high voltage and it was repaired by the service providers as a good gesture and not on the basis of warranty. Again the complainant reported the defect and the set was inspected by the service providers of 2nd opposite party. The cause of defect was high voltage due to voltage fluctuation. The 1st opposite party stated that the warranty provided is only for manufacturing defect. The defects to the T.V happening through high voltage or lightening are not covered by warranty given. Hence the complainant has to pay service charges and other charges as per the stipulation of service providers. To the knowledge of the 1st opposite party there is no manufacturing defect in the T.V set. Further 1st opposite party stated that they have no duty or role in the care and service of the T.V set. Since the 2nd opposite party is having separate service centre at Palakkad they are providing service for their products directly.
The 2nd opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased the colour T.V set on 27/08/05 for an amount of Rs.16,500/-. The 2nd opposite party has provided warranty to the CTV for 4 years against any defect in the CTV and the warranty is to replace the defective parts free of cost, on the terms and conditions specifically stipulated in the warranty. On receipt of the complaint on 7/11/07 2nd opposite party’s Service Engineer, Sri.Subhash inspected the CTV of the complainant as per the job card No.4006857445. It was found that the CTV of the complainant was damaged due to lightening. Due to the request of the complainant, 2nd opposite party has repaired the CTV free of cost. On 26/4/08 another complaint was received regarding non-functioning of the CTV from the complainant. Then the 2nd opposite party has deputed its Service Engineer, Sri.Ravi Das who attended the customer complaint as per job card No.4008423201. He has found that the CTV is again damaged either due to excess voltage or due to lightening causing damage to Printed Circuit Board. The service centre of the 2nd opposite party has issued an estimate for Rs.8,000/- informing the complainant that the damage to the CTV is either due to excess voltage or due to lightening and it is not covered under the terms of warranty. The complainant has made averment that the CTV set is defective one. No steps were seen taken to prove the same. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.
Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite parties. 2nd opposite party filed I.A No.87/2010 for appointing an expert commissioner. IA was allowed. Commissioner inspected the TV set and filed report which is marked as Ext.C1. Complainant and Commissioner were examined. 1st opposite party and complainant filed questionnaires. Answers filed by 2nd opposite party and complainant.
Issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and order entitled to the complainant?
Issues 1 & 2:
We have heard the learned counsels of both parties and gone through the evidence on record. Admitted facts of the case is that the opposite parties are dealer and the manufacturer of Samsung India Electronics respectively. The fact that the TV set had started mal-functioning during the warranty period is not in dispute. According to Ext.A1 the complainant purchased a Samsung colour TV set from 1st opposite party on 27/08/2005. The complainant stated that at the time of purchase an offer of 4 years was given and an extended warranty for a period of 3 years was also offered for the purchase made between 8/8/2005 and 20/9/2005. According to Ext.A2 shows the 4 years warranty and 3 years extended warranty issued by the 1st opposite party.
Both opposite parties stated that the TV set was damaged because of high voltage or lightening and it is not covered by the warranty. According to Ext.C1, the commissioner stated that the normal working voltage of television set is between 150V – 230V and high voltage is the one which comes above the mentioned level. Further he noted that the television was or had to work in very high voltage or an impact of lightning might have caused the damage as seen in the set. The 2nd opposite party stated that the Service Engineer, Sri.Subhash inspected the CTV of the complainant and found that it was damaged due to lightening. Again the Service Engineer, Sri.Ravi Das has attended another complaint and found that the CTV is damaged either due to excess voltage or due to lightening causing damage to printed circuit board. Therefore the TV set was became damaged due to excess voltage or lightening. Normally the users removed the power plug and cable TV connection during rainy season and lightening. The complainant is a retired Senior Divisional Commercial Manager in Southern Railway, Palakkad Division. At the time of cross examination, complainant stated that the damage was found in the TV set after the purchase of one and half years. Excess voltage or lightening was happened in the rainy season or voltage variation. The complainant stated that the Service Engineer of 2nd opposite party has not given directions for taking precautions for avoiding excess voltage or lightening. No contrary evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show that the direction was given for taking precautions. The 2nd opposite party admitted that the Service Engineer was inspected the TV set on 7/11/07 and 26/4/08. The Service Engineer has found that the CTV is damaged due to excess voltage or lightening. The service engineers have not examined by the opposite parties to explain the damages found in the TV set. At the time of cross examination the commissioner stated that all types of TV set having equipment to control excess voltage. Further the commissioner stated that lightening or excess voltage will damage all electronic items. In the present case the excess voltage or lightening has not damaged TV set within one and half years. Due to attractive offers from the company through various media complainant was opted to purchase the TV set. No evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show the terms and conditions of warranty was given to the complainant. The warranty was valid upto the month of September 2009. The complainant contacted the service agents of opposite parties on several times. The dates and phone numbers of the service agents are stated in the complaint. No contrary evidence was produced by the opposite parties. The complainant stated that inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties have not taken any steps to rectify the defects of the TV set. It is violation of warranty. The damage of the TV set was found within the warranty period.
In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint allowed.
We direct both opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay complainant the price of the TV set of Rs.16,500/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand and five hundred only) and pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization. On receipt of the decree amount, the complainant is directed to hand over the TV set to the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of January, 2011
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Sri.T.Balan
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
CW1 – Sri.A.Velunni.
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Invoice No.S0001316 dtd.27/8/2005
Ext.A2 – Photocopy warranty card
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Customer details cum warranty card
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Customer details cum warranty card
Ext.B2 – Customer service record card
Ext.B3 - Customer service record card
Ext.B4 – Estimate
Ext.C1 – Commissioner’s report
Cost (Allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost
