Date of filing : 09-07-2013
Date of order : 27-10-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.165/2013
Dated this, the 27th day of October 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Ranjith.K, S/o.Kunhambu.(Late), : Complainant
Kandathil House, Po.Kanikoth,
Via.Kanhangad
(In Person)
1 Murali, Proprietor, : Opposite parties
Samsung System and Service Centre,
Near Kailas Theatre, Kanhangad.
2 The Managing Director,
Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd,
Suites No’s 101 to 103, 1st Floor,
Copia Corporate Suites, Plot No.9,
Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. 110025
(Advs. P.Fazil, Jayasree Manoj &Jithin Paul Varghese
And Shrikanta Shetty.K. Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased one Samsung LCD TV from M/s Perfecta Electronics Dubai on 19-02-2013 with one year International Warranty from the date of purchase. At the time of purchase of the TV it was assured that the TV will be repaired anywhere in the world from the authorized Sam Sung service centre free of cost if any fault is occurred within the warranty period. They have also assured that the defective product will be replaced with a new one if the same cannot be repaired. The TV was installed at the house of the complainant and the same was functioning without any problem for one month. But on the second week of March 2013 the TV was having some defects and not functioned since then. The complainant informed the service centre at Kanhangad and the service personnel came to the house of the complainant and inspected the TV within 2 days. After the inspection he demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- as the repairing charge. When the complainant stated about the warranty and other details to the service personnel the same has been totally ignored by him and insisted for the payment for repairing the set. When the service personnel refused for a free service the complainant herein showed the warranty card to him and the service personnel humiliated the complainant in front of the public. The act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice. The opposite party No.1 appoints Opposite party No.2 to do servicing of Samsung products manufactured by Samsung. Therefore opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound by the warranty conditions. Due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant sustained mental agony and pain. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite party No.1 refused notice and hence the name of opposite partyNo.1 was called absent and set exparte. Opposite party No.2 was appeared through counsel and filed version stating that the complainant’s case is false and hence it is not maintainable since the subject matter LCD TV was purchased by the complainant’s brother from Dubai and complainant is not a consumer as per provisions under the CP Act. Opposite party No.2 has further opposed the other contentions in the complaint and stated that the complainant herein is not entitled to international warranty because the complainant had not produced the proof of purchase, viz the purchase invoice. Since the invoice was not produced by the complainant and hence he is not entitled for the international warranty. According to opposite party No.2 it is a mandatory requirement to avail the free service only after production of purchase invoice. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any free service and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 was marked from his side. The counsel for opposite party No.2 represented that he has no oral evidence.
4. On perusal of the affidavit in lieu of his chief examination of PW1 and also on perusal of Ext.A1 the Forum is of opinion that the complainant has a Sam Sung LCD TV with one year international warranty and it was purchased on 19-02-2013 . The subject matter of the above case was damaged within one month after its installation. The LCD was purchased only on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite party company that the same will be repaired anywhere in the world from the authorized Samsung Service Centre free of cost if any defect is occurred within the warranty period. The opposite party Company also assured that defective product or part will be replaced with a new one if the same cannot be repaired. It is true that the Samsung is one of the most leading company in the world for its many products and any of non-compliance of the earlier promise and assurance with regard to the international warranty is nothing but an unfair trade practice. The justification given by the opposite parties for not accepting the warranty was due to the non-production of purchase invoice. They further contended that it is a mandatory requirement for the proof of purchase of the subject matter. But on going through the records before us, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant is the owner of the subject matter herein, LCD TV which is the subject matter is a costly item. Moreover, there is no doubt about the international warranty period for the said TV and the same was damaged within the warranty period. Therefore denial of warranty benefits is definitely an unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party. As per the complaint the TV was not functioning since one month after installation. Therefore the interference of this forum is highly necessary in this stage and the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the LCD TV with a new one and the opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and pain with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Warranty card
PW1. Ranjith.K.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
