Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/61/2017

B.Vijay kumar, S/o B.Chinnaswamy Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.V. Digital Show Room, Rep. by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

V.Sreenivasulu

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

Filing Date: 08.12.2017

Order Date:06.09.2018

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.61/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

B.Vijaykumar,

S/o. B.Chinnaswamy Reddy,

Aged about 35 years,

D.No.2-68/1, M.R.Palli,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         S.V.Digital Show Room,

            Rep. by its Proprietor,

            SAMSUNG Plaza,

            Karnala Street,

            Tirupati.

           

(previously running shop at

  D.No.16-1-17, Nethaji Road,

  Tirupati).

 

2.         SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its authorized signatory,

SAMSUNG Customer Satisfaction,

II Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Square,

Sector-43, Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon,

Haryana State – 122 002.                                                    …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 29.08.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.Sreenivasulu, counsel for complainant, and opposite party No.1 remained        ex-parte, and Sri.A.Suresh, counsel for opposite party No.2,  and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant with the following allegations:

2.  On 02.04.2014 complainant purchased SAMSUNG Air Conditioner Model ARI8H V5 NB WKNNA No. OAYKPDCF2014252 and on 03.04.2014 V-Guard 4KB stabilizer, for a total sum of Rs.46,000/- from opposite party No.1 shop. Thereafter air conditioner was installed in complainant house and TIN number is 28139022645. The complainant basing on opposite party No.1’s advertisement that   10 years warrantee for SAMSUNG company air conditioner, purchased the same from opposite party No.1 shop. On 28.07.2017 he observed that air conditioner was not working. Then the complainant made a complaint to air conditioner service centre in Tirupati. One person came and checked the air conditioner and told that it has to be repaired. The complainant consulted opposite party No.1 shop, but they denied that warranty is in force and did not respond to the complainant’s request for repair. The opposite parties affixed a big sticker showing 10 years warranty for the air conditioner but they have not issued warranty card to the complainant, instead they sent one booklet through air conditioner box to the complainant at the time of purchasing the same. The opposite parties said that warranty is for some parts of the system and not for the entire air conditioner. Even the words in the warranty card also not visible. It is nothing but unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties have not done proper service and failed to rectify the mechanical defect of the air conditioner. The complainant suffered mental agony on account of unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. A registered legal notice was issued on 18.08.2017 by the complainant to the opposite parties, and as there are some corrections in the notice, another notice was also issued on 22.08.2017 by the complainant counsel through registered post to the opposite parties. The same was acknowledged by the opposite parties but no reply was given. The cause of action arose on 02.04.2014 when complainant purchased the air conditioner from opposite parties and when air conditioner became non-functional due to mechanical and manufacturing defect. It is therefore prayed to allow the complaint by directing the opposite parties either to repair the air conditioner Model ARI8H V5 NB WKNNA or to replace with a new air conditioner in the place of defective one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.46,000/-. He further prayed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- may be awarded towards compensation as he suffered mental agony due to unfair trade practice by the opposite parties and further prayed for a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.   

            3.  Opposite party No.1 set ex-parte on 27.03.2018. Opposite party No.2 contested the case by filing written version.

            4.  In the written version, opposite party No.2 raised the following contentions. At the outset the complaint allegations are denied. It is stated that Samsung is one of the leading manufacturers of electronic products including computer peripherals and got very strong research and development base. The products of Samsung are of highest quality and it will never sell any product, which is defective in nature or having manufacturing defects. The complainant has to establish the purchase of Samsung air conditioner from opposite party No.1 shop for an amount of Rs.46,000/- by way of standard evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act. Opposite party No.1 would not issue any warranty on the product manufactured by this opposite party and this opposite party alone is competent to issue warranty for the products manufactured by it. As such the claim of the complainant that opposite party No.1 advertised 10 years warranty on Samsung air conditioner is incorrect and is not binding on opposite party No.2. The air conditioner was working in good condition till 28.07.2017 itself establishes that there is no manufacturing defect. The authorized service centre on the basis of complaint No.4241913752, dt:29.07.2017 detected condenser problem and the same is not covered under the warranty. The warranty period of 10 years is only for compressor and for the rest of the parts in the system warranty period is only for one year. Hence, for repairing condenser, complainant had to pay repair charges, but he refused to do so. The terms and conditions of warranty are contractual and hence binding on both parties. The allegation that words on the warranty card are not visible is false. The alleged mechanical defect in the air conditioner is also incorrect. There is no question of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. The opposite party issued reply to the notice issued by the complainant denying the allegations in the complaint and therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            5.  The complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Whereas one Anindya Bose, DGM (CS) was examined on behalf of opposite party No.2.

            6.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

            7. Point:-  In the chief affidavit, complainant reiterated his stand as stated in the complaint. Ex.A1 is original bill / invoice for Rs.46,000/- for the purchase of Samsung air conditioner and V-Guard stabilizer, issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.A2 is original copy of warranty card dt:03.04.2014. Ex.A3 is registered legal notice dt:18.08.2017 issued by complainant counsel. Ex.A4 is also registered legal notice dt:22.08.2017 issued by complainant counsel. Ex.A5 is acknowledgement of opposite party No.1. Ex.A6 is reply notice dt: 01.09.2017 issued by opposite party No.2. Further it is mentioned in Ex.A6 that air conditioner was diagnosed by their authorized service centre and repair is required and for that the estimated cost is Rs.11,586/-. It is further stated that the product is no more in standard warranty term as per age. As per gesture of goodwill they offered 25% discount for repair charges. Ex.A7 is two photographs showing the air conditioner in question.   

            8.  Though opposite party No.2 denied the purchase of Samsung air conditioner, under Ex.A7 it is admitted that air conditioner in question was purchased by the complainant. Further Ex.A1 shows that receipt for Rs.46,000/- for the said air conditioner was issued in the name of the complainant. Hence, complainant is consumer within the meaning of Section-2(d) of C.P.Act. It is not in dispute that the said air conditioner was not in working condition from 29.07.2017 onwards i.e. more than 3 years after the purchase of the air conditioner. Issuance of warranty card dt:03.04.2014 is also not in dispute, as it is clearly admitted by the opposite party No.2 in their reply notice that “kindly refer the warranty terms on warranty card or the same is also available on our website http://www.samsung.com/in/support/warranty/”.

            9.  The complainant in the written arguments stated that opposite party No.1 did not issue warranty card to the complainant at the time of purchase of air conditioner, instead they sent booklet regarding warranty along with the air conditioner and the letters shown in warranty are very small and not visible to naked eye and therefore it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 as well as opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 in their written arguments contended that opposite party No.1 would not issue any warranty on the product manufactured by opposite party No.2 and it is the opposite party No.2, who is competent to issue warranty for the products manufactured by it and as such the claim of the complainant that opposite party No.1 advertised 10 years warranty on Samsung company air conditioner is incorrect and not binding on opposite party No.2. It is further contended that air conditioner was working in good condition till 28.07.2017 and that itself establishes that there is no manufacturing defect in the system. It is further contended that the legal notice contains false allegations against opposite party No.2 and there is no question of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2 as alleged by complainant and as such the complaint is to be dismissed. No documents are filed by opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2, to show that there is condenser problem in the air conditioner in question. It is true that the contents in Ex.A2 are written in small letters, which is not even visible to naked eye. However, it is seen from Ex.A2 that each part of air conditioner is covered by different periods of warranty. For example the compressor has got 60 months warranty and inverter compressor has got 120 months warranty, multi channel condenser has got 36 months warranty period. Though opposite party No.2 contended that there is condenser problem and the same is not covered by warranty period, since 3 years elapsed from the date of purchase of air conditioner, but no documentary evidence is filed to prove the same. The fact remains that air conditioner is not in working condition. On the basis of documents produced and contentions raised by the complainant, we are of the view that opposite parties 1 and 2 committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered.

            10. In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to repair the air conditioner in question free of cost and handover the same to the complainant in good working condition within a period of two months. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony undergone by him, due to unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties    1 and 2, and also further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. The time for compliance of the order is 2 months. Failing to comply the order, the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization, and further the opposite parties 1 and 2 shall refund the cost of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.46,000/-.                 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 6^th day of September, 2018.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                     

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  B. Vijayakumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Anindya Bose (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Bill/Invoice for Rs.46,000/- for the purchase of Samsung Air Conditioner and V-Guard Stabilizer issued by Opposite Party No.1 i.e., S.V. Digital Show Room, Nethaji Road, Tirupati. Dt: 02.04.2014.
	Original copy of Warranty Card. Dt: 03.04.2014.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 18.08.2017.
	Rectification of Legal Notice to O.P.No1 and 2. Dt: 22.08.2017.
	Acknowledgements 2 in Number.
	Reply Notice issued by the Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 01.09.2017.
	Original copy of Photos 2 in number along with CD.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/- 

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

   

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

          

    

   Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.