Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  On 01/03/2012 the complainant purchased a TV set (LA 32 D 550KIRMXL Model TV) for an amount of Rs. 30,500/-, from the 2^nd opposite party.  1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the TV set.  It is contended that when 6 months were over the main panel of the TV became defective and the said defect was rectified by 2^nd opposite party without any payment.  On completion of the next 6 months the display of the TV set became totally defective therefore the complainant intimated the same to the 2^nd opposite party office’s in time.  Even though the complainant informed the defect the opposite parties were not rectified the mistake of the TV set.  At last on 2015 the complainant sent an e-mail to 1^st opposite party in respect of the defects noted above in which the said opposite party sent an e-mail reply to the complainant stating that an amount of                     Rs. 17655.179/- is required for the repairment of the TV set.   According to the complainant the amount demanded by the 1^st opposite party is so exorbitant and it is unjust.  Hence this complaint for realizations of an amount of Rs. 57,600/- from the opposite parties as the price and other expenses of the TV, compensation, cost etc. etc.

3. This Forum entertained the complaint, and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are entered appearance and filed separate version in this case.   The version of1st opposite party is as follows.  According to 1^st opposite party there is no cause of action for this complaint and there is no jurisdiction for this Forum to try the case. It is further contended that the allegation of the manufacture defect of the product can be proved only through an expert report and also pleaded that there is no justification for the calculation of the compensation by the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased this TV set from 2^nd opposite party which is manufactured by 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party is ready and willing to rectify the mistake if the cost of material and labour would have to be met by the complainant.  According to the 1^st opposite party an amount of                Rs. 17655.179/- is necessary for conducting the said repair.  There is no mechanical or manufacturing defect happened to the TV as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore this 1^st opposite party is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4. The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and also contended that the allegation of defect of the main panel is not correct.  The complainant was used the TV without any care and lightening also affected to the TV.  The 2^nd opposite party properly assessed the defect of the TV and found that an amount of Rs. 17665.179/- is required for its rectification.  The complainant was not willing to pay the amount for the same.  It is further contended that the TV set is having good quality and due to the rash and negligent use of the complainant the T.V set had become defective.  The 1^st opposite party has not stopped the production of this model TV and at present the manufacturer is producing new product with advanced technology for entertaining and meeting the interest of the customers.  It is further contended that the pleading of the complainant with regard to the reason for the delay for filing the complaint is also false. The allegations of the complainant that the opposite party cheated the complainant and he suffered damages etc are also false.  Therefore, this 2^nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
5. On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us we framed the following issue for consideration.
   1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
   2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
   3. Regarding the relief and costs?

6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Ext. A1 to A2 are also marked through PW1.  Ext.A1 is the Retail Invoice bill dated: 01/03/2012.  Ext. A2 is the e-mail letter sent by 2^nd opposite party dated: 04/11/2015.  On the other side though the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party filed separate versions they did not adduce any oral evidence or evidence on document at the time of trial.  1^st and 2^nd opposite party’s learned counsel cross-examined PW1.  After the closure of evidence this Forum has given sufficient opportunity to the parties for hearing.  The complainant appeared before the Forum and argued his case either the opposite parties or their learned counsel appeared before the Forum or argue their case on the days of so many hearing.
7. Point.No.1:- 1^st and 2^nd opposite party in this case seriously contended in their version that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is also contented that there is no cause of action or jurisdiction to this Forum to try this case.  When we appreciate the evidence of this case it is come out in evidence to show that the complainant he who purchased TV set as per Ext. A1 cash bill by paying an amount of Rs.29,500/-.  It is also admitted that 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the TV set and 2^nd opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  Considering the above said material aspect we can easily come to a conclusion that the complainant herein is a consumer as per the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Therefore, we found point No.1 in favour of the complainant.
8. Point No.2&3:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point No.2&3 together.  When we examine the evidence adduced by the PW1 in this case it is so clear to see that PW1 he who purchased TV set from 2^nd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 30,500/- and the said TV set had become defective.  It is also evident to see that 2^nd opposite party has rectified the mistake of the TV after the expiration of 6 months of its purchase.  But it is also evident to see that after an elapse of 6 months of its rectification the TV set again became defective and PW1 approached the 2^nd opposite party for its rectification.  It is to see that 2^nd opposite party prepare an estimate for an amount of                        Rs. 17,655/- for curing the defect of TV.  It is also admitted that at the time of preparing the above said estimate the warranty period was also over.  In version 1^st and 2^nd opposite party admitted that they are ready and willing to repair the TV set subject to the payment of the estimate amount as stated above.  The PW1 deposed that the amounts estimated by opposite parties are so ex-orbitent thereby PW1 was not ready to remit the amount.  PW1 specifically pleaded that his TV set was suffering mechanical defect there by the opposite parties are liable to refund the Ext. A1 amount or otherwise rectified the mistake of the TV set.  It is pertinent to see that if a mechanical defect is seen in this TV set it is the duty of the complainant PW1 to prove it through expert evidence.  Here the complainant PW1 was not adduced any expert evidence to show that his TV is suffering any mechanical defect.  The only remaining question to be considered is whether the opposite parties are liable to repair the TV set.  It is true that PW1 deposed that the 1^st opposite party, manufacturer, has withdrawn the above said models of TV from the market.  This allegation is denied by the opposite party through their version.  When PW1 is cross – examined by the learned counsel appearing for 1^st & 2^nd opposite party PW1 answered “Ext. A2 reply ൽ Rs. 17,655/- നൽകിയാൽ TV യുടെ Complaint മാറ്റിത്തരാം എന്നു പറഞ്ഞില്ലേ (A) പറഞ്ഞു. അത്രമാത്രം പണം നൽകിയാൽ ഉത്തരവാദിത്വമില്ലാത്തതിനാൽ ഞാൻ TV നന്നാക്കാൻ ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടില്ല  (Q) ഇപ്രകാരം 01/03/2012 ൽ വാങ്ങിയ TV ക്ക് 29/10/2015 ൽ ഉണ്ടായ തകരാറുകൾക്ക്  warranty period ൽ ഉൾക്കൊള്ളിച്ച് കേടുപാടുകൾ പരിഹരിക്കുന്നതിന്  OP1 & 2ന് യാതൊരു ബാദ്ധ്യതയും ഇല്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. (A) warranty period കഴിഞ്ഞു എന്നും പണം കൊടുക്കണം എന്നും അറിയാമായിരുന്നു.”.    In the light of the above deposition of PW1 it is crystal clear to see that even the complainant PW1 was admitted that the TV set has no warranty at the time of the alleged repair and he is also well aware about the payment of the material cost and labour cost to the concerned.  When we refer Ext.B1 we can see that the complainant through his brother Sreekumaran Pillai sent an e-mail to 1^st opposite party stating the defect of the T.V set and also requested to provide a panel for his LCD TV set in a fair price.  In reply to his letter the Senior Executive, Customer, Experience Sumsung India Pvt. Ltd replied “We thank you for contacting our CEO’s office and giving us a chance to assist you.  This is in reference to your email dated: 29/08/2015.  We would like to inform you that we have acknowledged your issue and we will get you in touch very shortly.  Thanking and assuring you for best services always”.  So it is clear that the complainant sent an e-mail on 29/08/2015 with regard to the channel complaint of the TV set and the said complaint was served to the 1^st opposite party.  But it is seen that though the 1^st opposite party has given a reply to the complainant no further action has been taken by 1^st opposite party with regard to this complaint.  No doubt the act of the 1^st opposite party’s non-performance to cure the defect of the TV set of the complainant PW1 is a deficiency in service on his side.  As the manufacturer of the product it is the paramount duty of this 1^st opposite party to redress a genuine complaint of their customer.  Here we can clearly find a deficiency in service on 1^st opposite party.  However we find that 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is jointly and severely responsible to rectify the defect of the TV, if the complainant PW1 paid the amount necessitated for it.  In pursuance of the contents referred above from Ext. B1 e-mail communication between the complainant and opposite party it is pertinent to see that 1^st opposite party has committed a deficiency in service against the complainant and 1^st opposite party is liable to the complainant to that extend.   Therefore, we find that the complaint is only be partly allowable and Point No.2 & 3 are also found accordingly.

9. In the result, we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are here by directed to rectify the mistake of the TV within one month of the receipt of this order subject to the realization of the cost of material and labour from the complainant. 
2. 1^st opposite party is here by directed to pay a compensation of                    Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards. 

      Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of July, 2017.             

                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                          P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                 (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Harikumar. P.K.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Retail Invoice bill dated: 01/03/2012.

A2 :  e-mail letter sent by 2^nd opposite party dated: 04/11/2015.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 : Copy of e-mail.

                                                                                                   (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Harikumar.P.K,

                    Puthenpurayil Melethil,

                    Athirumkal Post, Muttakuzhy,

                    Pathanamthitta District, Pin. 689693.

2.  The Managing Director/CEO,

      M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

      20 – 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,

 Golf Course Road, DLF/PHV,

 Gurgaon, Hariyana – 122202.

3.  The Manager,

      QRS Retail Ltd., Authorized Retailer,

      Alummoottill Plaza, T.K. Road, Pathanamthitta.

4.   The Stock File.