Date of filing:18.4.2013
Date of Disposal:6.1.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.74 OF 2013.
Between :
Mannem Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivas, S/o M.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Residing at Near YSR Statue, Chandrapuram Village, Nandigam Mandal, Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Samsung India Electronics (P) Limited, Rep., by its Managing Director, A-25, Ground Floor,Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi – 110 044.
2. Samsung India Electronics (P) Limited, Door No.73-1-10/1, 73-1-13, 3rd Floor, Opp.Durga Mahal Theatre, M.G.Road, Patamata, Vijayawada.
3. Sonovision Enterprises, Rep., by its Proprietor, Eluru Road, Governorpet, Vijayawad – 2.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 1.1.2014 in the presence of Sri N.Durga Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Smt P.Padmaja, counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant purchased a Samsung LCD/Plasma T.V. on 27.5.2009 from the 3rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.15,200/-. But from the date of its purchase, the Television causing problems one after the other. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to rectify the defect in the T.V. But inspite of several visits the opposite parties informed the complainant that some spare parts are not available and to process commercial solution bill copy is necessary to raise the approval and the said fact was informed by their service engineer on 28.8.2012. The complainant submitted bill copy and warranty card on 4.9.2012 and also delivered the Television to the 2nd opposite party in the month of December, 2012. After 15 days the 2nd opposite party returned the Television to the complainant saying that the said spare part is not available from the company till date. Thereafter the complainant requested the opposite parties on several times to replace the defective Television with a new one. But the opposite parties failed to do so. Thus the complainant got issued a legal notice through his advocate demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective Television with a new one. On receipt of the said notice the 2nd opposite party addressed a letter dated 24.1.2013 to the complainant to furnish bill copy, customer I.D., address proof and depreciation acceptance letter for possible solution. In the said letter they also informed that they will take back the defective Television and refund the cost after depreciation value. The opposite parties are not entitled to deduct the depreciation value as they themselves admitted that the Television purchased by the complainant is a defective one. Hence the question of deduction of depreciation does not arise. The opposite parties are liable to refund the original cost of the Television but they failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,200/- towards the cost of the Television or to replace the same new Television, same brand and same model in place of the defective and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay costs.
2. The 3rd opposite party called absent and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version.
The version of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is in brief:
Opposite parties 1 and 2 denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that if the complainant purchased the said Television on 27.5.2009 from the 3rd opposite party, it is out of warranty. As per the records, the complaint for the first time arose on 27.8.2012, beyond the warranty period. Despite the same, the opposite parties 1 and 2 made serious efforts to locate the spare parts of main PCB, but the same is not available immediately as the model is phased out. The opposite parties informed the complainant that as per the company policy, M/s Samsung will take back the defective Television and refund the cost after depreciation. The terms and conditions of warranty card itself contain in Clause-7 wherein it is stated that in the event the spare parts are not available, the product would be taken back by deducting the depreciation and pay the balance amount. But the complainant is not willing to accept the depreciation value. The complainant failed to understand the contents of the letter of opposite parties dated 24.1.2013. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 and on behalf of the opposite parties Sri M.Suryanarayana the Branch Manager of the 2nd opposite party filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not
rectifying the problem of the Television or replace the Television with new one
which was purchased by the complainant from opposite parties?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant purchased LCD/Plasma Television from the 3rd opposite party for Rs.15,200/- under Ex.A.1 bill and Ex.A.2 warranty card dated 27.5.2009. The complainant says that from the date of its purchase, the said Television causing problem and he approached the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the Television. The service engineer of the opposite parties informed him under Ex.A.3 dated 29.8.2012 that some spare parts of the said Television are not available and to process commercial solution, the bill copy is necessary to raise the approval. The complainant submitted bill copy and warranty card on 4.9.2012 along with letter Ex.A.4 and also delivered the said Television in the month of December, 2012. After 15 days the 2nd opposite party returned the said Television saying that the spare parts are not available from the company till date. The complainant requested the opposite parties on several times to replace the Television with new one. But the opposite parties failed to do so. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.5 dated 5.1.2013 through his advocate to the opposite parties and the opposite parties received the said notice under Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8 on 7.1.2013 and gave reply under Ex.A.9 dated 24.1.2013 informing that “the matter is pending for spare and the spare is no E.T.D. To provide possible solution, bill copy, customer I.D., address proof and depreciation acceptance letters are necessary and previous we are received bill copy and request letter only, that is not enough to process the solution the same was informed to you by phone please arrange to submit the required documents. As per company policy, we will take back your defective unit and will refund the product cost after depreciation value. We will process for refund of remaining amount after depreciation. Your defective unit needs to be submitted at our workshop”.
7. The opposite parties says that the complainant purchased the said Television on 27.5.2009 and the complaint for the first time arose on 27.8.2012 beyond the warranty period. The 1 and 2 opposite parties made serious efforts to locate the spare parts of main P.C.B. but the same is not available immediately as the model is phased out. The opposite parties informed the complainant under Ex.B.2 dated 24.1.2013. That as per company policy, the Samsung will take back the defective Television and refund the cost after depreciation. But the complainant is not willing to accept the depreciation. The terms and conditions of the warranty card, Clause-7 it is stated that in the event of the spare is not available, the product would be taken back by deducting the depreciation and pay the balance amount.
8. On hearing the both parties arguments and perusing Ex.A.2 the terms and conditions of the warranty card and Ex.B.2 documents required processing solution and Ex.B.1 service order detail information, we, the Forum noted that the warranty period is one year and as per Ex.B.1 the first complaint was received on 27.8.2012 and the warranty period was over. In the columns of accessory “no picture, main PCB to be replaced”, in remark “customer not given any documents for solution” and in defect desc “part not ETD INF to customer not accepting for depreciation”. The complainant failed to approach the opposite party with required documents and to get refund the money loss depreciation respectively. Hence we could not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach the opposite party and hand over the Television to get refund of cost less depreciation as calculated by the opposite parties.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 6th day of January, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Mannem Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivas D.W.1 M.Suryanarayana
Complainant Branch Manager of the
(by affidavit) 2nd opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 27.05.2009 Photocopy of receipt issued by the 3rd opposite party for
Rs.15,200/-.
Ex.A.2 . . Photocopy of Customer Details cum Warranty Card.
Ex.A.3 29.08.2012 Photocopy letter from the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A.4 04.09.2012 True copy of letter from the complainant to the 2nd opposite
party.
Ex.A.5 05.01.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.6 . . Three postal receipts.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.8 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.9 24.01.2013 Photocopy of letter from the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 . . Photocopy of service order detail information.
Ex.B.2 24.01.2013 Photocopy Letter from the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant along with.
PRESIDENT
