Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

351/2011

D.Poornima - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Next Retail Shop & Others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Senthamil Selvan

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                                Date of Filing  : 30.11.2011

                                                                                                                                    Date of Order : 10.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge 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.                                :  MEMBER-I

C.C. NO.351 /2011

TUESDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                              

D. Poornima,

W/o. Mr. P. Dharmaraj,

No.4, Old No.23/1, New No.57,

Ground Floor, Eswari Grahamala Apts.,

Chennai  -600 024.                                                      .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Sansui,

Rep. by the Manger,

No.14, KMS Stone,

Aurangabad Paithan Road,

Chitagaon,

Aurangabad District – 431 105.

 

2. M/s. Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by the Manager,

No.568, Poonamallee High Road,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai  -600 106.

 

3. M/s. Next Retail Shop,

Rep. by the Manager,

B-1, Express Avenue,

Basement Floor,

Royapettah High Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                            ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainant                  :  Mr. B. Rajkumar Ashok Singh          

                                                             & another                                                      

Counsel for 1^st opposite party         :  Exparte

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party        :  Mr. S. Saravanan

Counsel for 3^rd  opposite party        :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to provide a new TV, without any technical defect as replacement for the defective TV and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant  and to revalidate the warranty period from the date of replacement of the defective TV and interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment.

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

                The complainant has purchased a Sansui-SAN 29” Colour TV with description SESS29SDJ, STE, Serial No.541 from the NextRetail Shop in Chennai, the 3^rd opposite party on 13.01.2010 for Rs.11,235/-.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the Colour TV.  The complainant submits that from the first day of purchase there were lot of technical defects in the TV that the picture and sound were not clear and the complainant made complaints immediately to the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party has replaced the defective TV with a new one on 11.02.2010.   The complainant submits that the new replaced TV has also the same defects.  The 3^rd Opposite party has advised the complainant to contact the Customer Care department of the 1^st opposite party.

2.     The complainant states that from 01.01.2011 there were lot of technical defects in the replaced colour TV, with the result the audio visual qualities were very poor and further the colour TV suddenly got switched on and off itself.  The complainant states that she has made several complaints to the Customer Care of the 1^st opposite party on the following dates:

Complaint date            Complaint No.

07.09.2011         Che0709110273

10.09.2011         Che1009110035

15.09.2011         Che1509110085

20.09.2011         Che2009110122

12.10.2011         Che1210110281

13.10.2011         Che1310110092

28.10.2011         Che2811110317

 but there was no response  either from the Customer Care or the 1^st opposite party or the 2^nd opposite party.

3.     The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party has informed the complainant that the warranty period for the TV has lapsed and the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- for the repairs.  The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party ought to have extended the warranty period from 01.01.2011, the date on which the replacement was given.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 03.11.2011 and the 2^nd opposite party has sent a reply dated:15.11.2011.  The complainant submits that the act of the customer care of the 1^st opposite party in protracting the matter, so as to make the warranty period to lapse and subsequent the 2^nd opposite party who are the authorized service agent of the 1^st opposite party asking a huge amount of service charges of Rs.6,500/- is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

4.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the 1 & 3^rd opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and therefore the 1 & 3^rd opposite parties were set exparte. 

5.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 2^nd opposite party admitted the fact that the complainant purchased a SANSUI-SAN 29’ Colour TV on 13.01.2010 and the said TV was replaced with a new one on 11.02.2010.  The warranty period of the new TV expires on 12.01.2011 or 10.02.2011.  After replacement there was no communication from the complainant till the complainant’s legal notice dated:03.11.2011.  The complainant made a call only on 07.09.2011 i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period.   Since the complaint was made 7 months after the warranty period the 2^nd opposite party promptly attended the faults and informed the complainant about their charge. Free service can be done by the opposite party till the warranty period only.  Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

6.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the  2^nd opposite party.

7.      The point for consideration before the Forum is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the defective TV with a new one as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as prayed for with cost?

8.  On point:

Heard both sides.  Perused the records namely complaint, written version, proof affidavits, written arguments, documents etc.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Sansui-SAN 29” colour TV with description SES29SDJ, STE, Serial No.541 from the Next Retail shop in Chennai on 13.1.2010 for a sum of Rs.11,235/- under invoice No.00757 as per Ex.A1.  Since the TV had some manufacturing defect, the complainant duly lodged a complaint with the 3^rd opposite party on 11.02.2010.  Immediately, the opposite parties replaced the TV with another one as per Ex.A2 on  11.02.2010.   The new TV also had similar problems and same defects.  Hence the complainant complained the same to the 3^rd opposite party who inturn directed the complainant to contact the Customer Care of the 1^st opposite party.  They advised the complainant to contact M/s. Tekcare India Private Limited, the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service agent. 

9.     The complainant complained the defects and problems on 17.01.2011, 19.01.2011, 07.09.2011, 10.09.2011, 15.09.2011, 20.09.2011, 12.10.2011,  13.10.2011 and 28.10.2011 correspondence to the complaint nos.Che 1701110036, Che 19011110431, Che 0709110273, Che 1009110035, Che 1509110085, Che 2009110122, Che 1210110281, Che 1310110092 & Che 2811110317.  But the complainant has not produced any record to prove such complaint and respective responses.  It is pertinent to note that out of the complaints, only 2 complaints are come under the purview of the warranty period.  The complainant has not taken any steps to prove such complaint made within the period of warranty establishes that the alleged defects and problems arises only after the warranty period.  Further the learned Counsel  for the complainant contended that, the 3^rd opposite party without rectifying the defect in the alleged TV, informed the complainant that she has to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- towards the repair charges and since the complaint of repair is out of warranty.  Even after repeated request in time by the complainant, the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defect in the TV which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 03.11.2011 as per Ex.A3.  The opposite parties sent a reply dated: 15.11.2011 as per Ex.A4.  The opposite parties with a bad intention and motive to exploit the complainant and extract more money demanded huge amount towards repairing charges.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case for replacement and compensation.  The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the complainant purchased 29” colour TV on 13.01.2010 which was replaced with a new one on 11.02.2010 on the alleged complaint.  Thereafter the complainant was silent till the legal notice dated:03.11.2011 for which suitable reply was given by the opposite parties.  The allegation that the complainant complained the defects and problems in the TV right from 17.01.2011, 19.01.2011 is absolutely false.  The complainant has not produced any record to prove such complaint.  The warranty for the period for the TV is one year which expires on 12.01.2011.  The legal notice sent only on 03.11.2011.  The first complaint made only on 07.09.2011 after the expiry of warranty period.  The opposite party duly attended the complaint, informed the complainant that the complainant shall pay the service charges.  The complainant without paying any amount towards service charges filed this complaint, claiming imaginary compensation and replacement of TV which cannot be accepted.  Further, the Counsel for the opposite party contended that it is the duty of the complainant to prove the prima facie of the complaint.   In this case, the complainant has not proved that the replaced new TV had a defect within the period of warranty, since there is no warranty, service shall be on payment of cost.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of considered view that the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief sought for in the complaint. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.No costs.

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 10^TH day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                         PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of cash receipt
		Copy of delivery challan-cum Gali pasi
		Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant with acknowledgement cards
		Copy of reply notice issued by the 2nd opposite party.

 

2^nd OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT