IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 100/S/2015.                         DATED : 07.12.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT             : SANDIP KUMAR GUPTA,

  S/O. Late B.P. Gupta,

  S. P. Mukherjee Road, Khalpara,

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.     

O.P.  Nos.      1.                        : SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,

  2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C,

  Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road,

  Gurgaon Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122 002.

                                    2.                     : SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTRE,

                                                              Raja Rammohan Roy Road,

  Near State Bank of India, Hakimpara Branch,

  Hakimpara, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                    3.                     : E-ZONE,

  Future Retail Ltd.,  

  Cosmos Mall, Sevoke Road, 2^nd Mile,

  Opp. Power House, Siliguri.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Monojit Roy, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

Consumer Case No.100/S/2015

The brief facts of the case are that on 28.01.2015 complainant purchased a television being Model Samsung 48H0003 3D LED TV from OP No.3 vide invoice No.91295003 dated 28.01.2015 being delivery note No.300127535 for a purchase price of Rs.1,30,097.71/- only with one year warranty period.  The OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the television and OP No.2 is the Authorized Service Centre of OP No.1 at Siliguri.  The television was installed at the house of the complainant but surprisingly right from 29.01.2015 i.e., very next day of purchase the television started to blink after starting it and the complainant on 29.01.2015 reported the said fact to the OP No.3 but the OP No.3 did not take the same as a serious concern and accordingly the said problem continued.  The complainant on several occasions brought the said manufacturing defect of the television to the notice of the OP No.3 by calling and personally visiting them but OP No.3 refused to entertain him.  Thereafter on 27.07.2015 the television suddenly went off in running condition.  The complainant immediately reported the same to the OP No.3 and OP No.3 informed the matter to the OP No.2 and also after expiry of two days of such reporting i.e., on 29.07.2015 OP No.2 sent its people to the house of the complainant to service the said television and on that date the OP No.2 opened the television at the house of the complainant and said that one electric board of the television is defective and requires to be changed and the same will be done within seven days from 29.07.2015.  Complainant on 29.07.2015 asked the concerned person of OP No.2 who visited his house, the document of such visit and service by him detailing the mal functioning of the television and the remedy for the same but the concerned person of the OP No.2 refused the same.  The OP No.2 never lived up-to its promise and accordingly after expiry of seven days the complainant personally visited the OP No.1 & OP No.2 but the OPs could not provide any fruitful response to the complainant.  At this on 07.08.2015 the complainant contacted service centre of OP No.1 at its free number 18002668282 and lodged a complaint with OP No.1 mentioning the above facts and complainant was provided with a complaint ID/Service order being NO.1499044253 dated 07.08.2015 with reference ID 8426662485 and assured the complainant to send people from OP No.2 but no person from OP

Contd......P/2

-:2:-

No.2 came to the complainant.  At this on 09.08.2015 the complainant complained to the higher authorities OP No.2 about such deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and thereafter people of OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant and changed the electric board but of no result and the mal functioning persisted and on scrutiny and servicing found that some other parts is defective and required to be changed and accordingly brought the same and changed it but of no result and thereafter found that the display panel of the said television is defective and assured the complainant to change the same.  At this the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction over multiple repairing of the television within hardly six months of his purchase and asked for replacement of the said television with a new one of the same model or refund of the purchase price of the television in alternative but the OP No.2 refused the same.  At this the complainant on 10.08.2015 personally visited the OP No.2 and OP No.3 and asked for replacement of the said television with a new one of the same model or refund of the purchase price of the television in alternative but of no result.  Since 10.08.2015 there has been exchange of several email communications between the OPs with its other authorities and the complainant concerning mal functioning of the said television of the complainant against the said complaint ID/service order being No.4199044253 and through email communications dated 11.08.2015 at 20.21 hours and 12.08.2015 at 12.37 p.m. and have been made aware about the fact that the complainant expressed dissatisfaction over multiple repairing of the television within hardly six months of his purchase and asked for its replacement and sought for solution of the issue by 12.08.2015 as per promise of the OP No.2 and its other authorities but OP Nos.1 & 2 have flatly refused the replacement vide email dated 12.08.2015 and 14.08.2015.  At this OP No.3 sent another email dated 15.08.2015 to the OP No.1 & 2 and its other authorities in connection with the said television being complaint ID 41990443 stating that the complainant is absolutely right for asking replacement as this is a case of manufacturing defect but OP No.1 & 2 and its authorities flatly refused the same.  Thereafter, the complainant on 17.08.2015 sent an email to the OPs ventilating mental agony and suffering concerning deficiency in service by the OPs and asked for replacement of the said television or refund of the purchase price in alternative but of no result. 

It has been asserted by the complainant that the OPs and their

Contd......P/3

-:3:-

authorities are fully aware that the said television is suffering from manufacturing defect and has turned dead and black hardly within six months of its purchase but most intentionally and unlawfully did not replace the same with a new one of the same model and compelled the complainant to remain with the said defective television sold to the complainant by the OPs vide Invoice No.91295003 dated 28.01.2015.  On 15.09.2015 the complainant called at toll free number but the OPs replied that they will not replace the television as the defective parts of the said television are not available in the market and refused to entertain the complainant any further.  Hence, this case.                                     

-:4:-

          In this case Notice was duly served upon OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 but despite proper service of notice OP No.2 did not turn up and accordingly the case is proceeding exparte against the OP No.2.

The OP Nos.1 & 3 entered appearance and filed two separate written versions wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  The case of the OP No.1 on the contrary is that OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the goods namely mobile phone, television, home appliances etc.  The complainant purchased a 3D LED television being Model No.48H8000 from OP No.3 vide invoice no.91295003 on January 28, 2015 for Rs.1,30,097.71/-.  The complainant had used the said TV for more than six months without any complain and the first complaint was registered with the OP No.1 on August 7, 2015.  The technician visited the residence of the complainant on 10^th August, 2015 and upon inspection of the TV it transpired that the panel of the said TV needed repair.  As per warranty terms of the OP No.1 as the panel was subject to repair free of cost, the OP No.1 informed the complainant of the same but the complainant declined to cooperate with the technician and demanded replacement of the TV.  The OP No.1 tried several times to make the complainant understand that OP No.1 cannot act beyond the warranty policy however the complainant failed to appreciate the company’s obligation towards its warranty policy and was of obstinate to take total replacement.  It has been further stated by the OP No.1 that OP No.1 all along wanted to resolve the issue amicably, but the rigid frame of mind of the complainant did not allow resolving the issue at the threshold.  The OP No.1 is still ready to repair the panel of the said TV as per its warranty terms provided the complainant allows the OP No.1 to do so.  It has been contended by the OP No.1 that the allegations brought against the OP No.1 being concocted, false and frivolous, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. 

It has been stated by the OP No.3 in his written version that the complainant has purchased the television in question (Samsung 48H80003D LED) from the OP No.3 on 28.01.2015 from E-Zone, Siliguri Outlet of OP No.3 by payment of invoice amount.  For the first after expiry of more than six months, complainant complained about the defect to the said television to the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 immediately referred the same to the manufacturer company and their authorized service centre (OP No.1 & OP No.2) for speedy resolution.

Contd......P/5

-:5:-

Since the complainant directly corresponded with the OP Nos.1 & 2 for resolving his issue, but the manufacturer and the service centre (OP Nos.1 & 2) failed to provide satisfactory resolution to the grievance of the complainant, hence the instant case has been filed.  It has been further stated by the OP No.3 that the complainant purchased the product manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. from the OP No.3 in sealed condition and without intervention by any means and at the time of purchase there was no problem in the said television but after usage the alleged problem occurred and after receiving information about the problem the OP No.3 immediately informed the matter to the concerned service centre (OP No.2) and its manufacturer (OP No.1) for resolving the issue and as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3, the instant case is not maintainable against him and liable to be dismissed.             

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Invoice No.91295003 dated 28.01.2015.

2.       Gate Pass No.3354260 dated 28.01.2015 issued by OP No.01.

3.       E-mail Communications between OPs, its authorities and the complainant from 10.08.2015 to 17.08.2015 containing 18 sheets.

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.

OP Nos.1 & 3 have filed evidence-in-chief.

          Complainant has filed Written Notes on argument.

OP Nos.1 & 3 have filed Written Notes of Argument.

Contd......P/5

-:7:-

Points for determination

1.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

          Both the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is admitted position that on 28.01.2015 complainant purchased a television being Model Samsung 48H00033DLED TV from OP No.3 vide invoice No.91295003 dated 28.01.2015 being delivery note No.300127535 for a purchase price of Rs.1,30,097.71/- only with one year warranty period.  The said television is manufactured by OP No.1 and OP No.2 is the authorised service centre of OP No.1 at Siliguri.

The specific case of the complainant is that the said television was installed at the house of the complainant but right from 29.01.2015 i.e., very next day of the said purchase the television started to blink after starting it.  On 29.01.2015 the complainant reported the said fact to the OP No.3 but the OP No.3 did not take the same as a serious concern and accordingly the said problem continued.  The complainant on several occasions brought the mal functioning of the television to the notice of the OP No.3 by calling and personally visiting them but of no result. 

The further case of the complainant is that on 27.07.2015 the television suddenly went off in running condition.  The complainant immediately on 27.07.2015 reported the same to the OP No.3 and OP No.3 informed the matter to the OP No.2 and only after expiry of two days of such reporting i.e., on 29.07.2015 the OP No.2 sent its person to the house of the complainant to service the said television and on 29.07.2015 the person of the OP No.2 opened the television and said that one electric board of the television is defective and requires to be changed and they said that the same will be done within seven days.  The complainant asked the concerned person of OP No.2 who visited his house to service the television the document of such visit and service by him detailing the mal functioning of the said television and the remedy for the same but the concerned person of the OP No.2 refused the same.  The OP No.2 never lived up to its promise and accordingly after expiry of seven days, the complainant personally visited the OP Nos.2 & 3 but they could not provide any

Contd......P/8

-:8:-

fruitful response to the complainant.  Thereafter, on 07.08.2015 the complainant contacted service centre of OP No.1 at its free no.18002668282 and lodged a complaint mentioning the above facts and the complainant was provided with a complaint ID/service order being No.4199044253 dated 07.08.2015 with reference ID 8426662485 and assured the complainant to send people from OP No.2 but no person from OP No.2 came to the complainant.  Thereafter on 09.08.2015 the complainant complained to the higher authorities of OP No.2 about the such deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and thereafter people from OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant and changed the electric board but of no result and the mal functioning persisted and on scrutiny and servicing found that some other parts are defective and required to be changed and accordingly brought the same and changed but of no result and thereafter found that the display panel of the said television is defective and assured the complainant to change the same and at this the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction over multiple repairing of the television within hardly six months of its purchase and asked for replacement of the said television with a new one of the same model or refund the purchase price of the television in alternative but OP No.2 refused the same.

The further case of the complainant is that since 10.08.2015 there has been exchange of several email communications between the OPs, its other authorities and the complainant concerning mal functioning of the television of the complainant against the said complaint ID/service order being No.4199044253 and through email communications dated 11.08.2015 at 20:21 hours and 12.08.2015 at 12:37 p.m. the OPs have been made aware about the fact that the complainant expressed dissatisfaction over multiple repairing of the television within hardly six months of its purchase and asked for its replacement and sought for solution of the issue by 12.08.2015 but OP No.1 & 2 have refused the replacement of television vide email dated 12.08.15 & 14.08.15.    Thereafter, OP No.3 vide email dated 15.08.2015 informed to the OP Nos.1 & 2 and its other authorities in connection with the said television being complaint ID 419904443 stating that complainant is absolutely right for asking replacement as this is a case of manufacturing defect but OP No.1 & OP No.2 and its other

Contd......P/9

-:9:-

authorities flatly refused the same.  Thereafter, the complainant on 17.08.2015 sent an email to the OPs ventilating mental agony and sufferings concerning deficiency in service by the OPs and asked for replacement of the said television or refund of the purchase price of the said television in alternative but of no result.  The same result followed on enquiry by the complainant on 20.08.15 and 29.08.15 and thereafter the complainant on 15.09.15 again called at 18002668282 toll free No. but OPs replied that they will not replace the television as the defective parts of the said television are not available in the market. 

In order to substantiate his case the complainant has submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and a good number of documents.  Document No.1 is the Tax Invoice No.91295003 dated 28.01.2015 in respect of purchase of the television in question, document No.2 is the Gate Pass being no.3354260 dated 28.01.2015 issued by OP No.1 and the document No.3 are the email communications between OPs and its other authorities and the complainant.    

Here it appears that the television set was purchased by the complainant on 28.01.2015 from OP No.3 at a price of Rs.1,30,097.71/-.  OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the television and OP No.2 is the service centre.  It further appears that within the warranty period that on 27.07.2015 the said television suddenly went off in running condition.  According to the complainant he purchased the television on 28.01.2015 and it was installed at his house but surprisingly right from 29.01.2015 i.e., very next day of purchase the television started to blink after starting it.  The complainant reported the said fact to the OP No.3 but the OP No.3 did not take the same as a serious concern and accordingly the said problem continued.  Thereafter, on 27.07.2015 when the television suddenly went off in running condition, the complainant immediately reported the same to the OP No.3 and OP No.3 informed the matter to OP No.2 and after expiry of two days of such reporting i.e., on 29.07.15 OP No.2 sent its technician who opened the television at the house of the complainant and said that one electric board of the television is defective and required to be changed and the same will be changed within seven days from 29.07.2015.  But it is surprising that OP No.2 did not turn up within this period of seven days and the concerned person of OP No.2 who visited the house of complainant on 29.07.2015 in spite of demand of the complainant refused to issue any document of such visit and service by him detailing the mal functioning of the television and the remedy for the same.  After expiry of seven day the complainant personally visited the OP No.1 & OP No.2 but they could not provide any fruitful response to the complainant and the complainant was forced to remain with a dead and defective television within six months of his purchase.  Thereafter on 07.08.2015 the complainant contacted service centre of

Contd......P/10

-:10:-

OP No.1 at its free number and lodged a complaint and he was provided with a complaint ID/service order being No.14990253 dated 07.08.2015 with reference to ID 8626662485 and assured to send people from OP No.2 service centre but no person from OP No.2 came to the complainant.  Thereafter, on 09.08.2015 the complainant complained to the higher authorities of the OP No.2 about such deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and thereafter people of OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant and changed the electric board but of no result and the malfunctioning of the television persisted and on scrutiny and servicing found that some other parts are defective and required to be changed and accordingly brought the same and changed it but of no result and the people of OP No.2 found that the display panel of the said television is defective.  The email correspondences between the OPs and its other authorities also corroborated the above facts and its appears from the said email correspondences that on 11.08.2015 the technician of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and changed the electric board of the television in question but of no result and they found the screen was totally blank.    

From the above facts we find that since 27.07.2015 till 09.08.2015 the complainant knocked the door of the OP No.1, OP No.2 and OP No.3 on several times and once OP No.2 sent his people on 29.07.2015 to the house of the complainant who opened the television and said that one electric board of the television is defective and required to be changed and assured the complainant that the same will be changed within seven days from 29.07.2015 but the people of OP No.2 did not issue any document in respect of his visit and service by him detailing regarding the mal functioning of the television and the remedy for the same to the complainant and did not turn up to change the electric board within that period of seven days from 29.07.2015.  On 07.08.2015 the complainant lodged a complaint to OP No.1 at its free number.  The OP No.1 assured the complainant to send people from OP No.2 but no person from OP No.2 came to the complainant and thereafter on 09.08.2015 when the complainant lodged complaint to the higher authority of OP No.2 the people of OP No.2 came to the house of complainant and changed the electric board and some other defective parts of the television of the complainant but of no result. 

From the above facts and circumstances it is clear that since 29.07.2015 till 09.08.2015 the OPs took the matter most casually and in spite of repeated reminder did not think it necessary to take initiative to remove the defect of the television on urgent basis and thus compelled the complainant to remain with a dead and defective television within six months of purchase and well within the warranty period.  Such dilatory tactics on the part of the OPs clearly show that there was utter negligency and deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  It is

Contd......P/11

-:11:-

required to be mentioned that even after scrutiny and servicing of the television of the complainant by the technician of the OP No.2 it was found out of order.  The people of OP No.2 said that the display panel of the said television is defective and assured the complainant to change the same and at this the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction over multiple repairing of the television within hardly six months of his purchase and asked for replacement of the said television with a new one of the same model or to refund the purchase price of the television in alternative.

On the side of the complainant a good number of email communications have been filed. 

Contd......P/12

-:12:-

On careful scrutiny of the said email correspondences amongst the Area Manager, Partners and other authorities of OPs, it is clear that on the basis of the complaint of the complainant several correspondences were made by them to resolve the problem but ultimately the problem was not solved.  The above correspondences also disclosed that as per technician’s first visit there was a problem with the power board which was replaced by the technician on 11^th August, 2015 but the problem was not solved and now the screen is totally blank and there is panel problem.  The technicians of the OPs assured to the complainant to replace the panel board, but the complainant expressed his dissatisfaction over multiple repairing of the television within hardly six months of his purchase.  The letter of Rashmi Ranjan Das, Store Manager, E-Zone Siliguri dated 15.08.2015 further disclosed that “customer is absolutely right for asking a replacement.  This is a case of manufacturing defect” and by that letter he wanted to know as to why Mr. Debabrata Biswas, Senior Executive of Samsung Electronics is saying the customer is unjustified.  In this case OP No.1 also stated in his written version as well as in evidence that their technician requested the complainant to replace the display panel but the complainant did not allow them to replace the same rather he asked for replacement of the said defective television with a new one of the same model or refund the money.  We have to remember it that complainant purchased the television at a price of Rs.1,30,097.71/- on 28.01.2015 being model Samsung 48H8000 3D LED television from OP No.3.  Samsung Electronics which is a reputed company having goodwill in the market.  Besides the Samsung there are several manufacturers of television have flooded the market with several brands of television, but relying on the goodwill and reputation of the OP No.1, the complainant invested his huge hard earned money and expected to get a good quality of television set.  But here it appears that within six months of purchase the television suddenly went off in running condition and after several correspondences and personal visit to the

Contd......P/13

-:13:-

doors of the OPs the technician of OP No.2 replaced the electric board of the panel stating that there was some problem in the board and also replaced some other parts of the television but of no result.  The technician of OP No.2 further stated to the complainant that there was some problem with display panel and assured to replace the same but it is not expected that a television purchased at a price of Rs.1,30,097.71/- would be repaired once again within the warranty period of six months from the date of purchase.  So, it is justified that the complainant did not agree for replacement of display board on the contrary he claimed for replacement of the said defective television with a new one of the same model or to refund the purchase price in alternative.  The complainant put his claim within the warranty period.  So, he is entitled to replacement of the said television with a new one of the same model or refund of the purchase price.  The OPs though claimed that they are all along ready and willing to replace the display panel but here we find that they did not take any initiative in this regard rather neglected to render service to the complainant.  So, considering the price of the television and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the materials and evidence of the parties on record and also considering the reported decisions cited on the side of the OP No.1 we are of the view that the case of the complainant is established beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the complainant is entitled to replacement of the disputed television with a new one of the same model or refund of the purchase price in alternative from the OPs and he is further entitled to get a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.                                            

In the result, the case succeeds.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.100/S/2015 is allowed on contest in part against the OP Nos.1 & 3 and allowed exparte against OP No.2 with cost.

The complainant is entitled to replacement of the disputed television with a new one of the same being Model Samsung 48H8000 3D LED TV or refund of the purchase price of the said television of Rs.1,30,097.71/- in alternative from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3.

The complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3. 

The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.6,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to replace the disputed television with a new one of the same being Model Samsung 48H8000 3D LED TV or refund of the purchase price of the said television of Rs.1,30,097.71/- in alternative by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

Contd......P/14

-:14:-

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental agony and harassment within 45 days from the date of this order.

The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.6,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.

Failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded sum of Rs.1,80,097.71/- from the date of this order till full realization. 

In case of default, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.