Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/25/2014

M/s.Arthi Pincha - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Samstronics by its manager - Opp.Party(s)

V.Yurendrakumar

30 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 23.01.2014

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 30.10.2019

                                                                                  

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

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

 

C.C. No.25/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

Aarthi Pincha,

W/o. Mr. Priyank Pinch,

No.7A-1, Manonmani Ammal Road,

Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.                                                        .. Complainant.      

                                                                                                   ..Versus..

 

1. M/s. Samstronics (Samsung Services),

Represented by its Manager,

No.258, 2^nd Street,

Ganapathy Colony,

Ekkaduthangal,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

2. Sansung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

No.24, Rajasekaran Street,

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : Mr. V. Yurendrakumar & another

1^st opposite party                              : Ex-parte

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. V.V. Giridhar & others

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. R.  BASKARKUMARAVEL, MEMBER

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to replace the LCD TV without any demur or demand to take back the LCD TV pay its cost with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 16.03.2013 till repayment, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the deficiency in service and compensation for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain with cost of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that she purchased a Samsung LCD TV LA 32 R 81 BX/SAP System board manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for the purpose of wedding present for her son.   The complainant submits that on 16.03.2013, when the LCD TV was not functioning, complaint was given to the 1^st opposite party service personal.   The complainant submits that the Service Personal assured that the LCD TV will be repaired very soon and it will be returned very shortly.   But till date, the opposite party has not repaired the LCD TV and returned to the complainant which is in the custody of the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant submits that since there is an inherent manufacturing defect, the opposite parties are not able to rectify the defects and returned to the complainant.   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:03.06.2013 which was served to the opposite parties but the cover returned to the complainant.   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 ex-parte.

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

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant had stated the she got the LCD TV as a marriage gift to her but she did not mention the date of purchase and who had purchased the LCD TV.  The 2^nd opposite party states that they got a call from the complainant with regard to the non-functioning of the LCD TV set.   It was informed to the complainant that the said TV set turned in automatic standby position.   The 2^nd opposite party states that immediately after receipt of the complaint of defect on 16.03.2013, the 1^st opposite party attended the defect and taken the TV set to the Service Station.  On inspection of the LCD TV set, some of the spare parts has to be replaced and should be purchased and the fact was informed to the complainant for approval.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant is adamant to charge the spare parts and for payment of cost of the spare parts since, there is no warranty or guarantee.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint as against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

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

5.      The points for consideration is:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the LCD TV or alternatively the cost of the LCD TV with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 1^st opposite party after receipt of notice not appeared before this forum and remained ex-parte.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents and miserably failed to file written arguments.   The 2^nd opposite party even though filed written version and proof affidavit has not come forward to file any documents.  Heard the Counsels for the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.   Written arguments of the 2^nd opposite party is filed.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version and proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party and documents of the complainant.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she purchased a Samsung LCD TV LA 32 R 81 BX/SAP System board manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for the purpose of wedding present for her son.   Ex.A4 is the copy of wedding card which shows the date of marriage falls on 04.12.2007.   Hence, this Forum can presume that the LCD TV was purchased in the year 2007 only.   The complainant has not filed any separate document for purchase of LCD TV.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on 16.03.2013, when the LCD TV was not functioning due complaint was given to the 1^st opposite party service personal.   Ex.A1 is the copy of Job Card issued by the 1^st opposite party is absolutely silent regarding the nature of defect.  

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the Service Personal assured that the LCD TV will be repaired very soon and it will be returned very shortly.   But till date, the opposite parties has not repaired the LCD TV and returned to the complainant which is in the custody of the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Further the contention of the complainant is that since there is an inherent manufacturing defect, the opposite parties are not able to rectify the defects and returned to the complainant. Further the contention of the complainant is that the manufacturing defect need not be proved in all cases by way of expert evidence.  In this case from 16.03.2013 on wards, the LCD TV was not functioning and is in the custody of the opposite parties which has not been serviced and returned to the complainant. The opposite parties has not explained the reason for such non service and not returning the LCD TV to the complainant.   Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:03.06.2013 as per Ex.A2 which was duly issued to the opposite parties but the cover returned to the complainant which is marked as Ex.A3(S) and has not taken steps to sent any reply.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case proves the deficiency in service.

8.     The learned Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party would contend that the LCD TV was purchased in the year 2007 and non-functioning of the LCD TV set.  It was informed to the complainant that the said TV set turned in automatic standby position.   But the 2^nd opposite party has not produced any record.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that immediately after receipt of the complaint of defect on 16.03.2013, the 1^st opposite party attended the defect and taken the TV set to the Service Station.  On inspection of the LCD TV set, some of the spare parts has to be replaced and it should be purchased and the fact was informed to the complainant for approval.   But the 2^nd opposite party has not produced any document to prove what are the spare parts to be replaced in order to rectify the defects in the said TV proves that the allegation of inspection and requirement of spare parts are absolutely false.   Further the contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant is adamant to pay charge for the spare parts since, there is no warranty or guarantee.  But there is no record for such refusal.  On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party has not explained the reason for the non service and return of the LCD TV set.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to service the LCD TV and rectify the defects within one month and hand over to the complainant, failing which, the opposite party shall pay the cost price of the LCD TV with a compensation of rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.      

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to service the LCD TV and rectify the defects within one month and handover it to the complainant, failing which, the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost price of the said LCD TV and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% 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 30^th day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	16.03.2013	Copy of Job card
Ex.A2	03.06.2013	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A3		Copy of returned covers
Ex.A4		Copy of wedding card

 

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT