D.O.F : 01/09/2023
D.O.O : 31/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.269/2023
Dated this, the 31st day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Malini K
W/o Chandrashekhara (L)
Pernadukka (H)
R D Nagar Post
Kudlu. : Complainant
And
- National Radio Electronics
New Bus stand
Kasaragod
- Samsung Service Centre
Kasaragod : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that, she purchased a Samsung TV from opposite party No.1 on 5/8/2023. But opposite party No. 1 dragged the fitting of the TV for 2 weeks. While opening the pack, there is a damage on the screen of the TV set. Moreover the TV was not functioning properly. When it is informed to the opposite party No.1, they offered that they are ready to repair the same for Rs.8,900/-. As the product has valid warranty she was not ready to pay the repair charge. Hence her prayer is to refund the price of the TV with compensation and cost.
The opposite party No. 1 notice served, remained absent, set exparte. For opposite party No.2, even though there are some representations, version is not filed so far.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to A2. The issues raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, issue No.1 to 3 can be discussed together. The allegation of complainant is that, the TV set purchased from opposite party No.1 is not functioning properly. There was a damage on the glass of the TV set and opposite party No.1 took 2 weeks delay to fit the TV set in the complainant’s house. The complainant is a coolie worker. She purchased the TV set from opposite party No. 1 on 5/8/2023 as per Ext. A2 invoice for Rs. 15,900/-. Ext. A1 is the warranty card. As per Ext. A1 and A2, the purchase of the Samsung LED UA32T4350BKXXL from opposite party No.1 by the complainant is true. It is the duty of opposite parties to prove that the product sold by them is of good quality and without any defects. But they remined absent. The other allegations raised by the complainant against opposite party No.1 is that when the defects of the TV is informed to the opposite party No.1 they demanded Rs. 8,900/- for repair during warranty period. The illegal claim made by opposite party No.1 to the complainant for repair charge amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. As a coolie worker, the complainant had spent such a huge amount believing the quality of the TV. But it was not functioning properly from the beginning itself. The demand of repair charge by opposite party No.1 to the complainant made mental agony to the complainant. Both opposite parties are bound to compensate the loss and miseries undergone by the complainant.
The claim of the complainant is to refund Rs. 15,900/- with interest, compensation and cost. The prayer of the complainant is reasonable.
Considering the circumstances of the complainant and the negligence shown by the opposite parties to her complaints regarding the function of the TV set, we fix an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
Therefore, opposite parties are bound to refund the price of the TV set, ie, Rs.15,900/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand Nine hundred only) with 9% interest from 5/8/2023 till payment with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – warranty card
A2 – Invoice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
