Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/82/2016

T.Keerthirajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

samsang india Electonic pvt - Opp.Party(s)

k.k.Rathinavel

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.05.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.82/2016

 

 

T.Keerthirajan,S/o. Thanasekaran,

No.9, Narayana Garden, 9^th Lane,

Old Washermenpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory,

2^nd , 3^rd ,4^th Floor,

Tower – C-Vipul Tech Square,

Sector 43, Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon,

Haryana – 122 002.

 

2.Girias Investment Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory,

No.18, Harbor Square,

Cemetry Road,

Old Washermenpet Road,

Chennai – 600 021.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 26.05.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. K.K.Rathinavel, H.Krishna Raj

Counsel for  1^st Opposite Party                : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                       : Ex – parte (on 27.06.2016)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the cost of the TV of Rs. 32,900/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase i.e., 11.12.2015 and also to refund the extended warranty cost of Rs.4,523/- and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has purchased a Samsung Led TV from the 2^nd opposite party/dealer on 11.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.32,900/-. The said TV was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The product is having 12 months warranty. The complainant also purchased extended warranty on payment of Rs.4,523/- for the period from 11.12.2016  to 10.12.2019.

2. The said TV  was installed by the Samsung Technician on 13.12.2015. A vertical line was found on the display on the very first day of its use. At that time the Samsung Technicians informed the complainant that it was only due to cable wire fault. Subsequently also the vertical lines were seen in the display. The complainant made the complaint on 21.12.2015 to the Samsung service centre.  The  defect in the TV is a  manufacturing defect. The technician visited the complainant residence and after inspection informed that TV display panel is defective and the Samsung Customer Care also assured for replacement of the TV.

3. The complainant made several phone calls and also e-mail to the 1^st opposite party on 12.01.2016 that the product is having inherent manufacturing defect and sought for replacement of the product. The 1^st opposite party replied on 21.01.2016 that they would repair the unit on chargeable basis and cost of the repair would be Rs.12,552/-. The complainant sent another e-mail on 25.01.2016 for the replacement and also sent legal notice. The product is well within the warranty period. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to replace the product to the complainant as requested by him and failure to do so they have committed deficiency in service and caused monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to refund the cost of the TV of Rs. 32,900/- with 18% interest from the date of purchase on 11.12.2015 and also to refund the extended warranty cost of Rs.4,523/- and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.  

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The allegation made by the complainant that the TV install is defective, the complainant on the very same day of installation , he would not have allowed the technicians to install the television set. Having the complainant allowed for installation of TV, the allegation made by the complainant is false. The customer care never assured the complainant that they will replace the television set. The service person only found that the display panel of television got damaged at the end of the complainant. Further, the service personal also informed the complainant that the damage was caused to the display panel violates the terms of the warranty and hence service to the product would be done only on the payment charges of Rs.12,552/-.

          5. The television set purchased by the complainant was a good one and there was no defect and  at the time of installation there was no defect or damage to the TV purchased by the complainant. Subsequently the service personal found the damage proves that the complainant himself caused the damage to the product and he cannot take his own wrong. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file this complaint and this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          6. The 2^nd opposite party called absent and he was set ex-parte.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant has purchased a Samsung Led TV from the 2^nd opposite party/dealer on 11.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.32,900/- under Ex.A1 bill and  the said TV was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and  Ex.A2 is the warranty card for a period of 12 months  and the complainant also purchased Ex.A4  extended warranty on payment of Rs.4,523/- for the period from 11.12.2016  to 10.12.2019.

          9. According to the complainant the TV was installed by the Samsung Technician on 13.12.2015 and at the time the vertical line was seen and the technician who installed the TV  misinformed that it was cable wire fault and however subsequently there was also lines were seen in the vertical and horizontal in the display, hence the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party on 21.12.2015  about the same and the Samsung service centre personal visited and found that TV Display Panel is defective and he also assured that the product will be replaced with new one and however, there was no response, hence on 12.01.2016  the complainant wrote Ex.A5 mail to the 1^st opposite party that the product is having inherent defect  and to replace T V and however the 1^st opposite party sent Ex.A6 reply mail dated 21.01.2016 that the repair would be done on chargeable basis of Rs.12,552/-. Again the complainant sent Ex.A7 mail for replacement or refund the cost of the TV and that was not considered and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in  manufacturing and selling the defective TV to the complainant.

          10. The 1^st opposite party would contend that the allegation made by the complainant that the TV installed is defective, the complainant on the very same day of installation , he would not have allowed the technicians to install the television set and having the complainant allowed for installation of TV, the allegation made by the complainant is false and the customer care never assured the complainant that they will replace the television set and the service person only found that the display panel of television got damaged at the end of the complainant and therefore for the wrong committed by the complainant this opposite party is not liable to replace the product and not committed any deficiency in service.

          11. Admittedly, the TV was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party dealer. It is not the case of the 1^st opposite party while at the time of purchase; the complainant checked the product with good working condition and thereafter only took delivery of the product. Further, the complainant seen the vertical line only after installation and on checking the TV. According to him,  the technician informed the complainant that line seen in the display is cable wire fault. Believing such words, the complainant  continue to operate the TV and thereafter also he found the vertical and horizontal line in the TV. Since the same is continued the complainant made a complaint on 21.12.2015 to the service centre. The technician came and found that TV display panel is defective. After installation it is not the case 1^st opposite party that the complainant had handled the TV from the installation place. The technician also never said that the TV was removed from the installed place. Therefore, after installation, when the technician came on the complaint made on 21.12.2015 and  found that TV display panel is defective is only with the product or it should have occurred at the time of installation. There is no occasion for the complainant to handle the product. Further, it is not the case of the 1^st opposite party after installation the picture was seen clearly in the TV and  to that effect there is no pleading in the written version.  Therefore the above discussions establish that only the  defective product sold to the complainant is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

          12. The  TV purchased by the complainant was having one year warranty and he had also purchased extended warranty till  10.12.2019. Though the product  is within the warranty period, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs.12,552/- towards repair charges is deficiency. The 1^st opposite party would contend the damage caused by the complainant and hence warranty is not applicable. There is no evidence on behalf of the opposite party to prove that the complainant damaged the TV. Therefore failure to rectify the defect under the warranty is  deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer, he sold the defective product to the complainant and thereby committed deficiency. Therefore, for the forgoing reasons,  it is held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service.

 

13. POINT NO:2

          The complainant purchased the TV for a sum of Rs.32,900/- . The opposite parties failed to rectify the defect and also not replaced the product. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to refund the  sum of Rs.32,900/- to the complainant towards the cost of the product. Since the product is defective on the date of installation, the complainant is entitled for 9% interest  to the cost of the TV of Rs.32,900/- form 11.12.2015 i.e. date of purchase.   Further,  the complainant is entitled for  refund of extended warranty amount of Rs.4,523/- from them. Further due to the defective product sold to the complainant he had suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the same, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.   

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 &2 jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.32,900/- (Rupees thirty two thousand and nine hundred only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant  with 12% interest per annum from  11.12.2015 to till the date of this order and further to refund a sum of Rs.4,523/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred and twenty three only) towards the extended warranty and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees  twenty five thousand only) towards the compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The complainant shall simultaneously return the TV to any one of the opposite parties 1 & 2, when they pay the aforesaid amounts.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.        

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd  day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 11.12.2015		Sales Bill for Samsung TV
Ex.A2 dated NIL		Warranty Card
Ex.A3 dated 16.12.2015		Statement of Account given by Bajaj Finserv
Ex.A4 dated 11.12.2015		Extended Warranty Policy from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Ex.A5 dated 12.01.2016		1st e-mail complaint sent to 1st opposite party customer support centre and acknowledgement
Ex.A6 dated 21.01.2016		Reply for 1st e-mail complaint
Ex.A7 dated 25.01.2016		2nd e-mail complaint and reply from 1st opposite party
Ex.A8 dated 09.02.2016		Legal Notice sent to 1st and 2nd opposite parties along with postal receipts
Ex.A9 dated 10.02.2016		Postal Track report for notice to 1st opposite party
Ex.A10 dated 11.02.2016		Acknowledgement from 2nd opposite party
Ex.A13 dated 22.03.2016		Complaint posted in the Face book Account by Consumers

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY 1^st THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                                …… NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT