Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):

                   The complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite parties.

                   2. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:  Complainant had purchased a Samsung Led T.V from the 1^st opposite party on 06.02.2014 by paying Rs.27,500/-.  After one year the T.V has become damaged and the matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party in due time.  But he informed that the warranty period was expired and therefore he is unable to replace or repair the T.V.  It is again contended that the defect of the T.V set may be caused due to the defect of the electrification of complainant’s house. 

                   3. Complainant further contended that he sent legal notice to the opposite parties and they received the notice.  The 1^st opposite party sent reply notice stating that the 1^st opposite party have no service center of their own and Samsung Electronics have their own service point at Pathanamthitta and requested the complainant to contact there for service.  The complainant further stated that even though he approached the service centre at Pathanamthitta they have not been rectified the defect.  The above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for getting the T.V repaired free of cost along with cost and compensation.

                   4. In this case opposite parties are exparte.

                   5. On the basis of the pleadings of the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                  6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant is examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated06.02.2014 for Rs.27,500/- issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A2 series are the copy of legal notices sent to opposite parties.  Ext.A3 is the reply notice send by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A4 series are the Postal receipts of Ext.A2. Hence the opposite parties are already set exparte, they did not appear before the Forum and cross-examined PW1 in this case.  Therefore, the evidence adduced PW1 is unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned.

          7. The Point:-  The case of the complainant is that he purchased a T.V worth Rs.27,500/- from opposite party 1 and the said T.V set had become damaged and it is informed to the 1^st opposite party.  PW1 admitted that the defect occurred after the period of warranty.  It is deposed that even though PW1 approached opposite party 1 for the rectification of the T.V set the 1^st opposite party either replaced or repair the T.V as requested by PW1.  Though PW1 approached the service centre of Samsung they also reluctant to redress the grievances of the complainant.  It is deposed that the opposite party 1 and 2 committed deficiency in service and PW1 has got right to get the T.V set repaired by free of cost along with cost and compensation.

          8. When we appreciate the evidence, it can be seen that PW1 purchased the T.V set on 06.02.2014 by paying Rs.27,500/- as per Ext.A1.  It can be inferred that the warranty of the said T.V was expired on 06.02.2015.  It can be also inferred that when the T.V set occurred damages PW1 entrusted the T.V set to opposite party 1 for its rectification.  It is true that at that time the warranty of the T.V set was expired.  If so, the opposite party 1 is duty bound to rectify its mistake and handed over the T.V set to PW1 within a reasonable time.  When we appreciate the evidence adduced by PW1, it can be seen that though the PW1 entrusted the T.V set for rectification opposite party 1 failed to rectify its mistake within a reasonable time.  We do admit that if the warranty period is over, the owner of the good is liable to pay the repairing cost unless otherwise proved.  Here, there is no need of considering any mechanical defect of the T.V in this case.  PW1 has no case on this aspect with regard to mechanical defect.  Hence we can find that the opposite party 1 is bound to rectify the mistake of the T.V.  But at the same time, the complainant is also bound to pay the cost or repairing charge of the T.V to opposite party 1.  When we appreciate the evidence available before us, the opposite party 1 committed a deficiency in service by failing the rectification of the T.V set.  When we go through the deposition of PW1, it is deposed that he informed opposite party 1 with regard to the defect of the T.V set and a technician reported certain technical complaint of the T.V set and also informed the need of the change of the panel of the T.V set.  In the light of the deposition of PW1 with regard to the present status of this T.V complaint and the approach of opposite party 1 after the T.V entrustment are seen clear deficiency in service against opposite party 1 and 2 in this case.  As we stated earlier, the evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 is unchallengeable since opposite party 1 and 2 are set exparte.  Anyway, the complainant succeeds to prove his case against the opposite party 1 and 2 in this case.  In this case opposite party 1 is the dealer of the T.V set and opposite party 2 is the marketing head of the said good.  As far as this case is concerned opposite party 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to the complainant. 

          9.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. opposite party 1 and 2 are directed to rectify the defect of the T.V set on complainant’s own cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  (The complainant is also directed to entrust the T.V set for repair to 1^st opposite party’s shop within 15 days of receipt of this order).

2. If the opposite party 1 and 2 failed to comply the order No.1 above opposite party 1 and 2 are liable to pay the price of T.V set Rs.27,500/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand five hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.
3. Opposite party 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order.

                        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of December, 2016.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                            K.P. Padmasree,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (Member - I)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)   :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Hareesh Kumar. V

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Retail invoice dated06.02.2014 for Rs.27,500/- issued by

        1^st opposite party to the complainant.

A2 series :  Copy of legal notices sent to opposite parties. 

A3 :  Reply notice send by the 1^st opposite party. 

A4 series :  Postal receipts of Ext.A2.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

                                                                                                                    (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Hareesh Kumar. V, Valiyaveettil Vadakkethil,

                 Poozhikkadu, Kudassanadu.P.O., Pandalam.                                                  (2) Navas. S, Managing Director, Attinkara Electronics Division,

       Pandalam.

   (3) Mr. Byju, Marketing Head, Samsung Electronics Ltd., Kerala,

        Kadavanthra, Kochi.

            (4) Mr. Hyundai Hong, President at CEO, Samsung India-

                 Electronics Ltd., Delhi.

            (5) The Stock File.