IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 02.02.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.34/2015
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Shinoj. S. 1. Samsung Customer Care Service Manorama News Tower C, Vipultech Square
Aroor, Alappuzha Sector 43, Golf Course Road
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002
2. Samsung Exclusive Service Centre
M C W 26/475A, Stadium Ward
Alappuzha – 688 001
3. TTL Trading Pvt. Ltd. (Samsung
Shop), Near Obron Mall
Padivattom, Edappally
Kochi – 682 024
(By Adv. K.T. Anishmon – for
opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The facts of the complaint in short are as follows:-
On 12.4.2014 the complainant purchased a TV from the third opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party. 2nd opposite party is the authorized service centre. The complainant purchased the product for an amount of Rs.37,000/- and which is having 1 year warranty. During the warranty period the said product became defective and the defect was informed to the opposite parties. But till date the defect has not been rectified. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties seeking refund of the price of the TV together with compensation and costs.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties and they appeared before the Forum, but they did not file any version and continuously absent for the subsequent proceedings, hence opposite parties were set exparte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 12.4.2014 and Ext.A2 is the true copy of intimation given by the opposite party dated 16.12.2014.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for?
5. Points 1 and 2:- The points 1 and 2 can be considered together. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung TV from the third opposite party on 12.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.37,000/- which is having 1 year warranty. On December, 2014, ie. when the warranty was in existence the said TV became defective and the complainant informed the opposite parties about the defect and registered a complaint before the second opposite party. Thereafter a technician from the second opposite party checked the TV and informed the complainant that the board of the said tV became defective and agreed to replace the same within one week. But they failed to do so. According to the complainant, time and again he contacted the opposite parties to get the defects of the television rectified. But the defect was not been rectified so far and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties seeking direction against opposite parties to refund the price of the TV together with compensation and cot of the proceedings.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. From the documents it can be seen that the complainant purchased the TV on 12.4.2014 and the complaint was registered before the second opposite party on 16.12.2014 ie. 8 months after purchase of the product. So the defect occurred to the television was within the warranty period itself. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. His allegation is further strengthened by Exts.A1 and A2 documents. So it is clear from the documents that the defect of the television happened when the warranty was live and the defect was intimated to the opposite parties, but the defect was not rectified so far. The complainant contacted the opposite parties many times to get it repaired but they failed to do so. In spite of service of notice from this Forum the opposite party did not respond to the same which speak the volumes. Since the defect arose within the warranty period, the complainant is fully entitled to get it repaired with a warranty. Since the defect was not rectified even after getting an intimation amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties have given enough time to repair the same, but they did not turn up deliberately delayed the matter. So this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with a new one along with fresh warranty since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met adequately we think a further compensation is unnecessary. But he is entitled to get the cost of the proceedings. So the complaint is allowed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the defective TV with a new one of the same model along with fresh warranty. If the same model is not available then replace with a new one according to the choice of the complainant with fresh warranty. The difference in price if any, shall be met by the complainant. The complainant is directed to return the defective TV to the opposite parties. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the TV Rs.37,000/- (Rupees thirty seven only) along with 12% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Retail invoice dated 12.4.2014
Ext.A2 - Copy of intimation given by the opposite party dated 16.12.2014
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
