Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

264/2011

T.G.Ramanathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd & Other - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ravikumar

11 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 06.09.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.264 /2011

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 11^th DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

T.G. Ramanathan,

Mr. T.R. Gopala Krishnan,

No.2/426, First Street,

Karpagambal Nagar,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                 .. Complainant.                                                     

 

  ..Versus..

 

1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,

Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited,

Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar,

Off – Jogeshwari (East),

Mumbai – 400 060.

 

2.  The Zonal Manager,

Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited,

Pasadena,

No.18/1, (Old No.125/A), 10^th Main,

Ashoka Pillar Road,

Before Rani Sarla Devi School, 1^st Block,

Jaya Nagar,

Bangalore – 560 011.

 

3. Mr. Vinod,

Business Head,

Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited,

E-Zone-Chennai-Mylapore,

Grand Terrace, Old No.94, New No.162,

Luz Church Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

4.  The Chairman/ Managing Director/ CEO,

Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.,

2, 3 & 4^th Floors, Tower ‘C’,

Vipul Square, Sec-43,

Old Golf Road,

Gurgaon – 122 002,

Haryana.

 

5.  The Regional Manager – South,

Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.,

NAC Towers, No.85/1,

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                          ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                   :  Mr. K. Ravikumar

Counsel for 1 to 3 opposite parties  :  M/s. V.V. Sivakumar & others

Counsel for 4 & 5^th opposite parties : M/s. V.V. Giridhar

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and loss suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he purchased a Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite from the 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.72,700/- on 24.02.2011. The 3^rd opposite party also delivered the said Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite on 05.03.2011.  But neglected to deliver the free dish DTH and its supply on the same day.  Further the complainant submits that the intention to purchase the above said Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV–TZ210 HTIB – Satellite is exclusively for watching cricket world cup followed up by IPL matches.  Since the opposite parties jointly and severally neglected to provide free Dish TV STB connection, the complainant was not able to see the cricket match resulting great mental agony and hardship.  Further the complainant submits that after issue of letter dated:16.05.2011, the opposite parties provided the free DISH TV STB on 04.06.2011 without signal activation and later, on 16.06.2011 the said Dish TV was duly activated.  Therefore, the complainant issued notice dated:16.05.2011 and the opposite parties duly received the notice but failed to provide proper service.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the common written version filed by the  1 to 3 opposite parties is as follows:

The 1 to 3 opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    It is submitted that the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties are the branch offices of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1 to 3 opposite parties have no direct role to play in the matter and that it has been roped into the present complaint by reason of the opposite parties merely being / retailer of the 4 & 5^th opposite parties product and has no control or nexus over its manufacture, performance and the marketing schemes implemented by the 4 & 5^th opposite parties.  Further the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties state that from the advertisement on which the complainant has based his claim that the free offer of dish TB STB with a purchase of Samsung LED TV was an offer made / given by the 4 & 5^th opposite  parties on the purchase of Samsung LED TV and the said offer was not given by the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties.  As such, no liability can be fastened upon the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties with regard to delay in the supply of Dish TV STB.  

3.     Further the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties  state that the averments made by the complainant as to non-delivery of Dish TV STB on time and thereby causing deficiency in service is a dispute between the complainant and the 4 & 5^th opposite parties and the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties has no privity of contract in terms of the same.  The 1 to 3^rd opposite parties state that the complainant had purchased a Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite and free dish STB on 05.03.2011.  Since the Dish STB was not available, it was not provided to the complainant immediately after the purchase of the above said Samsung TV.   Further the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties state that the intention of the complainant to purchase the said Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite for watching cricket match is unknown to them.  The 1 to 3^rd opposite parties provided free Dish TV STB on 04.06.2011 and due connection with signal has been given.   The compensation claimed by the complainant is baseless.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     The brief averments in the common written version filed by the  4^th & 5^th opposite parties is as follows:

The 4 & 5^th opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 4^th & 5^th opposite parties submit that they are not aware of the complainant’s purchase of Samsung UA LED Television on 24.02.2011 and the offers given during such purchase by the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties.   The 4^th & 5^th opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice for they have no knowledge of the transaction between the complainant and 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties.  The 4^th & 5^th opposite parties manufactures of good quality products / consumables which are sold in the market by various dealers.   There is no cause of action against the 4 & 5^th opposite parties hence the 4 & 5^th opposite parties are not liable to compensate as prayed for.

5.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are filed and marked on the side of the 1 to 3^rd opposite parties.   Proof affidavit of the 4^th & 5^th opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 4^th & 5^th opposite parties.

6.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and loss as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation  for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties with cost as prayed for?

 

 

7.     On point:-

Heard the 1 to 3 opposite parties’ Counsel.   Inspite of sufficient time is given the complainant and 4^th & 5^th opposite parties has not turned up to advance any oral arguments for a long time, hence oral arguments of the complainant and 4^th & 5^th opposite parties is closed.    The complainant and 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits, documents etc.   Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite from the 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.72,700/- as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 on 24.02.2011. The 3^rd opposite party also delivered the said Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite on 05.03.2011.  But neglected to deliver the free dish DTH and its supply / connection / activation on the same day as per the Ex.B2.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the intention to purchase the above said Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite is exclusively for watching cricket world cup followed up by IPL matches.  Since the opposite parties jointly and severally neglected to provide free Dish TV STB connection and activation, the complainant was not able to see the cricket match resulting great mental agony and hardship.  Further the contention of the complainant is that after issue of letter dated:16.05.2011 as per Ex.A4, the opposite party provided the free DISH TV STB on 04.06.2011 without signal activation and later, on 16.06.2011 the said Dish TV was duly activated.   It is apparently clear that the act of the opposite parties proves the deficiency in service  resulting great mental agony to the complainant.

8.     The contentions of the opposite parties 1 to 5 is that admittedly, the complainant had purchased a Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite and free dish STB was assured.  Since the Dish STB was not available on the date of purchase, it was not provided to the complainant immediately after the purchase of the above said Samsung TV.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the intention of the complainant to purchase the said Samsung UA 40C5000 LED TV and DISH TV STB and SONY DAV – TZ210 HTIB – Satellite for watching cricket match is unknown to the opposite parties and has not whispered even at the time of purchase.  These opposite parties provided free Dish TV STB on 04.06.2011 and due connection with signal activation has been given.   The compensation claimed by the complainant is baseless.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this Forum is of the considered view that purchasing such TV for a huge sum shall have some importance.  In this case it is pleaded and proved that the complainant purchased the said Samsung TV along with Dish TV STB with the sole intention to watch cricket match.   Hence the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin 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% p.a. 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 11^th day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	24.02.2011	Copy of advance receipt
Ex.A2	03.03.2011	Copy of Tax invoice
Ex.A3	05.03.2011	Copy of Tax Invoice
Ex.A4	16.05.2011	Copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A5		Copy of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 to 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	18.05.2012	Copy of letter of Authorization
Ex.B2		Copy of the Samsung offer Special Customer Scheme issued by the 4 & 5th opposite parties to 3rd opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 4 & 5 SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT