OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C. 88/2014
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Kutubuddin Ahmed - Complainant
Hedayetpur,Guwahati-3
House No.-19
-vs-
1) Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Parties
Plot No..P-1, SIPCOT, Industrial Part,
Phase- II, Sunguvarchatram Post,
Kanchipuram Dist.TN-602106 (Tamil Nadu)
2) The Service Centre of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd,
Ulubari, P.O. Rehabari Above the KFC
Guwahati-7, Dist: Kamrup (M) Assam.
3) The SKY VISION
NEXT- India’s Largest Electronics
Retail Chain Near B.Baruah College,
GDSDS Complex, B.Baruah Road,
Ulubari,Guwahati-7
Appearance-
Ld advocate for the complainant - Complainant himself.
Date of argument- 18.1.2017
Date of judgment- 03.02.2017
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Kutubuddin Ahmed against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Tamil Nadu, The service Centre of Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd, Ulubari,Guwahati, The Skyvision, Ulubari, Guwahati was admitted on 16.9.2014 and notices were issued to the opp.parties and Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 has filed a joint written statement, but the case against Opp.Party No.3 is proceeding on exparte vide this forum’s order dtd. 27.5.15. The complainant filed his affidavit as evidence in support of his case and he also filed additional affidavit which was accepted. At the stage of cross examination of complainant side witness both Opp.Party No.1 and 2 found to have been absent without step and hence the hearing of evidence of complainant side was closed vide order dtd. 18.12.15 and on the other day the Opp.Party No.1 are directed to file their affidavit , but they neither filed affidavit nor been presence on the date fixed for filing affidavit by them, but they were gave two chances for filing affidavit and on both the dates they failed to file affidavit and being compelled this forum, vide ordeor dtd. 23.8.16, closed the stage of hearing of hearing of evidence of Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side and fixed the day of 15.10.15 for filing written argument by the complainant and Opp.Party No.1 & 2. The complainant had filed written argument on 10.11.16, but Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side were found to have been absent on 5.10.16 and 10.11.16 which were fixed for filing written argument by them. Finally on 18.1.17 we heard the oral argument of the complainant in support of his case in the absences of Opp.Party No.1 & 2 side and fixed the day of 24.1.2016 for delivery of judgment.
2) The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that he purchased one LED TV (70 cm) (HDMI) Samsung led 28F4100 T.V from SKY VISION, Guwahati (Opp.Party No.3) on 24.7.2013 paying its cost of Rs.24,900/- with a good faith that it will not retain any defect, but in the last part of Feb, 2014 in the said T.V., the front panel screen started showing some black spot in the line and then he went to Opp.Party No.3 and requested them to register a complaint and they also noted down the complaint and gave assurance to him that the personnel of the service centre would visit his house within one or two days ; but no personnel from service centre visited his house. On the end of July,2014 he found that some black spots started appearing in the screen of the said T.V.; and then he contacted the retail seller and requested him to send summon to the service centre to rectify the defect and Opp.Party No.3 communicated above defect to Opp.Party No.2 and accordingly one personnel from the above service centre visited his house, but he advised him to visit service centre in order to avail the service from the service centre, and then he visited the service centre (Opp.Party No.2) in the last part of August ,2014 and came to know that the complaint was registered with them vide complaint No.BP 8455688945 dtd. 27.8.2014 and their personnel advised him to contact their toll free No. 180030008282. Accordingly he lodged a complaint through the said contact number and requested them to repair his T.V. and they told him that some personnel will visited his house immediately to repair the T.V., but none visited his house, rather on 3.9.2014 at about 11.08 A.M. a person rang up him from Mobile No. 913617111234 and demanded a charge of Rs.9,000/- as a repairing charge of the said T.V. saying without which his T.V. cannot be repaired and he told the said person that the T.V. was purchased on in the end of July 2013, but installed in the first week of August ,2013 and several complaints were made through Opp.Party No.3. about the defects of the T.V but the opp.party side did not send any personnel thereafter to repair his T.V. and that amount to unfair trade practice on the part of the opp. parties . He also sent the said defective T.V. to the retail seller , but the latter denied to replace the said T.V. with a new one or to repair it. The said T.V. is having a manufacturing defect and the opp.party cannot demand Rs.9,000/- as repairing charge and thereby opp.parties are liable to replace the said T.V., and for such unfair trade practice he faces deprivation of the facility of the said T.V. and also suffered from mental agony as well as loss in his occupation and therefore he prays for directing the opp.parties to replace the said defective T.V. with a new one of that model and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-for causing loss of facility from the T.V.programme and causing occupational loss as well as for causing mental agony to him.
3) The gist of the pleading of Opp.Party No.,1 & 2 is that the complaint as filed is not maintainable in its present form. There is no cause of action against them. The averments of the complainant are not true factually. No complaint was received by the service centre as alleged by the complainant. But it is true that the first complaint was received on 27.8.2014 vide complaint No. 4180237635 and defect described was display problem, and the said T.V. was examined and repair cost estimated was Rs.8,247/- as estimated by their authorized service centre, but the amount was not approved and paid by the complainant rather he demanded free of cost replacement . The request for replacement cannot be accepted due to the fact that the product was beyond warranty period (one year) and as such FSC, Guwahati had to cancel the call. The second complaint was received on 2.9.2014 vide complaint No. 4180598968 where the defects mentioned was display problem and their authorized service centre estimated the repairing cost at Rs.8,247/-,but the complainant demanded free of cost repairment and as such FSC, Guwahati had to cancel the call. The T.V was installed after purchase within 40 hours of its purchase, but not on first week of August, 2014. The problem in the monitor as alleged was not due to any manufacturing defect. The refusal to replace the said T.V. or to repair it free of cost by them does not amount to deficiency of service on their part or its service centre. The display problem may happen under a number of physical (external) or mechanical (external) interference. There was no negligence on the part of their authorized service centre. The complainant is not entitled to replacement of his T.V.or repairment of his T.V. of free of cost, nor to compensation as sought by him owing to the fact that neither they nor their service centre did any deficiency in service towards him as their service centre performed iis obligation as specified by the condition of the warranty. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed.
4) We have perused argument which is forwarded by the complainant himself. We have perused the complaint as well as evidence adduced by the complainant. We are giving our finding as below-
5) It is both sides admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one LED TV (70 cm) (HDMI) Samsung led 28F4100 T.V from SKY VISION, Guwahati (Opp.Party No.3) on 24.7.2013 paying its cost of Rs.24,900/- vide Invoice No. 2162 .
6) The complainant states that although he purchased the said T.V. on 24.7.2013 it was actually installed by the service centre of the opp.parties by first week of August 2013. This version of the complainant is believable owing to the fact that he has stated about the said fact on oath and the opp.party side has not come forward to dis-prove that statement by adducing evidence. Thus, it is held that what the complainant states about the date of installation is believable. Therefore, it is held to have been established that the concerned T.V.was installed in the residence of the complainant by the service centre of the opp.parties by first week of August,2013, although it had been purchased on 24.7.2013. As the T.V.was first installed in the month of August,2013, the warranty period will start on first week of August ,2013.
7) From the evidence of the complainant, it is seen that his T.V. for the first time showed complicacy i.e. showing some black spots in the screen in the middle of Feb, 2014 and he then requested Opp.Party No.3 about the defect and the latter registered the complaint, but no service personnel was sent to his house and as a result the appearance of black spots in the T.V. screen continued, and again he reported the matter to Opp.Party No.3 and Opp.Party No.3 again registered the complaint and a service personnel of their service centre visited his residence, but advised him to visit the service centre ,and later on, he learnt that his complaint was registered in the end of August, 2014 vide Complaint No. BP 8455688945 dtd. 27.8.2014. He also requested the opp.parties through Toll-fee No. 18003008282 to repair the defect , but on 3.9.2014 he was contacted by a personnel through his mobile No. 913617111234 and he was advised to pay the charge of Rs.9,000/- as a repairing cost and also asked him on payment of that charge T.V. can be repaired as warranty/guarantee period was over, but he refused to pay the said charge owing to the fact that the defect in his T.V. arose within the warranty period and Opp.Party No.3 was also informed within the warranty period to repair the fact. From the evidence of the complainant it is established that the T.V. showed defects i.e. appearance of black spots in the screen from last part of Feb,2014. So, it is clear that the defects detected within the period of warranty i.e. within one year of its purchase. Secondly, it is also seen that the complainant, within the period of warranty, informed the opp.parties about the said defect and requested them to repair the defects, but they did not repair the defects,and in result the same defects showed in his T.V. in the last part of July 2014 and he again informed Opp.Party No.3 about the matter and requested him to repair the defect, but they did not take step to repair the T.V., and finally he also contacted the service personnel of the opp.parties through Toll-fee No. 18003008282, but none visited him to repair the defect, rather a service personnel contacted him through a mobile No. 913617111234 and told him that T.V. can be repaired on payment of charge of Rs.9,000/- telling him that the warranty period was already over. We have found from the evidence that the complainant detected the defect in his T.V.within the period of warranty. He also requested Opp.Party No.3 to repair his T.V., but neither Opp.Party No.3 nor any service personnel of the opp.parties had taken step to repair the T.V. Thus, it is crystal clear that the opp.parties willfully denied to repair the T.V. of the complainant . Thus we hold that such conduct of the opp. parties is a clear case unfair trade practice on the part of the opp. parties.
It is also found from evidence, that the defects was continuing in his T.V., and he again informed the opp.parties on July,2014 and that time the opp.party side demand repairing charge of Rs.9,000/- which the complainant refused to pay. The opp. parties admit that fact .We have found that as the defect was originally detected within the warranty period and complainant also reported the matter within warranty period, the opp.party side is liable to repair the T.V. free of cost and hence their demand for repairing charge is not justified and hence refusal to pay the charge by the complainant is right act.
8) As the T.V. showed defects within warranty period and that too was not caused by any external cause, the defect is a manufacturing defect . As the complainant had draw the notice of the opp.parties about that defects just after appearance of the said defects and that too within warranty period , but the opp.party side did not repair the T.V. till now, we are of view that the opp.parties are liable to replace the said T.V. with a new one or to refund the value of the T.V. Secondly, it is found that the complainant had to visit the establishment of Opp.Party No.3 in several occasions in the connected matters and that due to manufacturing defect of the said T.V. he failed to enjoy the T.V. programmes . Therefore, we are of opinion that the opp.parties are liable to pay compensation atleast Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing such harassment to him. Thirdly, the complainant had to pay certain amount in filing this complaint and had to attend this forum in different dates fixed by this forum and therefore the opp.parties are liable to pay atleast Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceeding.
9) Because of what has been discussed as above the complaint against Opp.Party No.1 & 2 is allowed on contest, but against Opp.Party No.3 is allowed on exparte. Accordingly, opp.parties are directed to replace the defective T.V. (Model No. LED TV (70 cm) (HDMI) Samsung led 28F4100) to the complainant with a new one or to pay him its value which is Rs.24,900/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay him Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceeding to which all the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable , in default, other two amounts shall also carry interest @ 12% per annum.
Given under my hand and seal of the District Forum , this the 3rd day of February,2017.
(Md.Sahadat Hussain)
President
(Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar)
Member
