IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 31^st day of August,  2021

Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R, Member

Sri. K.M Anto  Member

C C No. 227/2019 (filed on 16/12/2019)

Petitioner                                          :        Sajin Raj S.M.

                                                                   S.M. Bhavan,

                                                                   Poovanthuruth P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam – 686 012.

Vs.

Opposite Parties                               : 1)    Samsung India Electronics

                                                                   Pvt. Ltd.  A-25, Ground Floor,

                                                                   Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative

                                                                   Industrial Estate,

New Delhi – 110044.

   2)   Quality Services,

          K.M. Tower, Vadavathoor,

          Kottayam – 686 010.

     3)  Sri Vijayalakshmi Electronics,

          Bank Street, Opp. Indian Bank,

          Narasaropet, Andrapradesh.

O R D E R

Sri. K.M Anto  Member

          The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.

          The complainant had purchased a Samsung Company made LED TV model No.UA24H4003ARLXL Serial No.OAIR3PAJA05107 on 31-10-2017 from the 3^rd opposite party shop at Andra Pradesh.  The warranty for the TV was provided up to 31-10-2019.  The TV became faulty and was given to the 2^nd opposite party service centre at Kottayam for repair on 21-10-2019.  The warranty card and bill were also given to the 2^nd opposite party.  But the 2^nd opposite party informed the complaint that the 1^st opposite party is not giving warranty confirmation and it is not possible for them to do the repair under warranty.  The 2^nd opposite party agreed to clear the defects of the TV on payment of Rs.6,500/- being the repair charges.  The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

          On admission of the complaint, copy was duly served to the opposite parties.  First opposite party appeared and filed their version.

          As per the version of the 1^st opposite party, their service engineer inspected the television and found that the panel of the unit was broken which happened due to failure of the complainant to take proper care, thus the defective parts of the set were required to be replaced.  This was informed to the complainant and as the Unit was out of warranty period and the defects arose in the television was due to mishandling and physical damages, the defective parts shall be replaced on chargeable basis.  This offer was denied by the complainant.  There is no manufacturing defect in the Television and the defects occurred due to mishandling and physical damages due to the Television.  As per the company norms, extended warranty was given from 32 inch TV’s but the said TV was only 24 inch, thus refund, replacement or repair free of cost in case of mishandling, outside warranty period or physical damages were not included in the warranty terms and conditions of the Television.  It is further submits the willingness to carryout the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts on chargeable basis, as the display was damaged due to physical damages done to the set and the panel was broken.  There is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice from their part.

          The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked.

          Opposite party 1 filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked.

          Opposite party 2 and 3 failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case.  Opposite party 2 and 3 were declared exparte.

          Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, version of the first opposite party and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.

Point No.1 and 2

     On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the first opposite party and evidence adduced, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Samsung Company made LED Television Model No.UA24H4003ARLXL serial No.OAIR3PAJA05107 on 31-10-2017 from the 3^rd opposite party shop at Andra Pradesh.  The TV become faulty and was given for repair to the 2^nd opposite party service centre at Kottayam on                        21-10-2019.  The first opposite party  declined to give warranty confirmation to do the repair free of cost and the 2^nd opposite party offered to do the repair work on chargeable basis.  

     Ext.A1 is the bill for an amount of Rs.12,000/- issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant on 31-10-2017.  Ext.A2 is the Samsung Television 2 year warranty certificate issued to the complainant for the Television on                     31-10-2017.

     The first opposite party produced Ext.B2 document and it is the copy of the Ext.A1 bill along with copy of the sample extended warranty program, which is a part of Ext.A2.

     Ongoing through Ext.A2, we can see that it is very clearly stated that Samsung Television 2 year warranty certificate for the Television purchased by the complainant. It is further stated that the TV is eligible for one year standard warranty and one year extended warranty on panel subject to the terms and conditions, mentioned overleaf to be complied.

     On perusing the terms and conditions given overleaf of the warranty certificate it is stated that the extended warranty (1+1) will be valid for the specific models, purchased between 1^st May 2017 to 31^st May 2017.  Installation must be completed by 15^th June 2017 to avail extended warranty benefit.  1^st year of warranty is the standard warranty which is applicable from the date of invoice.  The 2^nd year warranty which is applicable from the date of expiry of the standard warranty is applicable only on panel failure.  The list of applicable models are 32 inches onwards.  In Ext.A2 the words “Samsung Television 2 year warranty certificate” is written very clearly which an ordinary customer can read and understand the meaning.  But it is pertinent to note that the terms and conditions given overleaf of Ext.A2 is written with tiny letters which an ordinary customer will not be able to read and understand the meanings.  The Ext.A2 warranty certificate was written in such a way as to make the complainant believe that the product purchased by the complainant will get 2 year warranty from 31-10-2017.

     Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 2(1) (r) defines unfair trade practice read as

     Section 2(1) (r) : “unfair trade practice” means “a trade practice- which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

1. The practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,-

1. falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model;
2. ******************************************

6. ******************************************
7. ******************************************

(viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be-

1. A warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services;
2. A promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out.

From the above findings we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite parties in issuing Ext.A2 warranty certificate in such a way to made the complainant to believe that the Television is having 2 year warranty from the date of purchase and the act of issuing the warranty certificate with outdated conditions is clearly unfair trade practice coming under Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, the complaint is allowed and we pass the following orders.

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to do the repair works of the television to a perfect working condition free of cost within 30 days from the receipt of this Order.
2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost Rs.1,000/-

    Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31^st day of August 2021

Sri. K.M Anto  Member                            Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R, Member                 Sd/-            

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.

A1 – Bill dtd.31-10-2017 issued by 3^rd opposite party

A2 – Warranty certificate

A3 – Copy of customer service record card dtd.21-10-2019

A4 - Customer service record card dtd.26-11-2019

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of Power of Attorney dtd.13-01-20

B2 - Copy of sample extended warranty card

B3 – Copy of warranty terms and conditions

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                              Senior Superintendent