BEFORE

District Consumer  Redressal Forum,

Dhalai, Kamalpur

 Case No. 5/CC/KMP/ of 2016

                   Sri Atul Debnath

                                                ……………………     Complainant

                                               Vs

1. Sri Nimai Paul.

2. SAMSUNG INDIA Ltd.

                                                  ……………… Opposite Parties.

                                         Present

                         Sri Arindam Paul.

                                 President,

             District Consumer Redressal Furum,

                           Dhalai, Kamalpur.

M E M B E R S

   1.  Smt. Subhadra Sen

                       2. Dr.Jiteswar Ahir

LD. C O U N S E L S

         For the Complainant :        Sri Atul Debnath

          For the Opp. Party No.2    :        Mr.A.Bhawal.Ld.Advocate

                    Date of Institution   :       16-03-2016           

        Date of argument    :        

 Date of judgment :    15-11-2016

J U D G M E N T

1.                          The genesis of this case is a written consumer complaint filed by Sri Atul Debnath alleging deficiency of service against Nimai Paul proprietor of Subha Varieties Shantirbazar, Kamalpur, Dhalai.

2.                          The complaint filed by Sri Debnath alleges that he purchased a SAMSUNG LED TV 23¨ from Subha Varieties for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 21.9.14. In support he has filed the cash memo, warranty card duly stamped. After a few months of the purchase the said TV started to mal-function and a small glowing spot appeared at lower right side of the screen and gradually it occupied a 3¨/4¨ space in the screen. When his verbal request to the seller yielded no result he gave a written information by registered AD on 19-08-2015. Thereafter, the seller did attend along with authorized service personnel from the company but they demanded Rs. 8,900/- for repairing the defect. When he refused to pay they took away the spare part fixed in his TV and as a result his TV was totally damaged. He has, therefore, filed this petition seeking damages to the tune of  Rs. 67,500/- for deficiency of service and litigation expenses.

3.                          The respondent side appeared and filed his written statement by which he admitted that he had sold the TV to the complainant. In the same vein he added that after sales service  is not in the domain of the seller and for this the purchaser has to approach the company authorized service provider. Yet he on his part on receipt of the communication from the complainant booked a complaint with the company authorized service provider and accordingly authorized technician has visited the  premises of the the complainant and has offered to repair the TV. But the complainant has not paid the cost of the spare part demanded by the technician. He,therefore, submits that there has been no deficiency in service in his part.

4.                          After having received the response of the respondent Nimai Paul it was felt that for just decision of this case the manufacturer SAMSUNG India Ltd. be arraigned as a respondent No 2.

                             The respondent No. 2 initially did not appear though they received notice. However, on date fixed for ex- parte hearing they appeared and asked for an adjournment without seeking to vacate the ex parte order. When they finally put up a written statement the same was accepted conditionally subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as cost. OP No. 2 however, did not pay the costs as ordered and hence neither was their written statement accepted or were they allowed to adduce any evidence.

5.                          Following issues were framed for just decision of this case.

                             I S S U E S

1. Whether the petitioner is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of OP No. 1 & 2.
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what shall be quantum & who shall pay the same?

6.          DISCUSSION, DECISIONS AND REASONS THEREOF

It is admitted as well as crystal clear from the documents adduced that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. He has alleged deficiency of service. From the reply given by the OP No. 1 it would appear that he has tried his level best to alleviate the grievances of the complainant. He booked service request with the  company and arranged technician to visit the premises of the complainant.   That the technician demanded money for repairing and the complainant refused to pay the same as he was under the impression that repairs are to be made free of charge as the complaint was lodged within warranty period is not within the purview of the seller. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on his part.

7.                The demand for payment for repairing the defect was made by the authorized service personnel who represents the OP No. 2. It would appear that the complaint was communicated within the warranty period. It was , therefore, the duty of the OP No. 2 to ensure that the same was repaired free of charge. Demanding money for spare parts for repair and maintenance of a defect that arose during warranty period definitely amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP No. 2. OP No. 2 is therefore responsible to pay compensation to the complainant.

8.                In view of the fact that the OP No. 2 was not properly represented during this case and was also not initially made a party , we are of the considered opinion that the OP No. 2 should repair the TV of the petitioner free of charge or replace the same and also pay him Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

9.                The case is disposed of with the above directions. Supply a copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.

10.               The case is disposed of on contest.