Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/70/2013

Desineni Balaram Naidu S/o. D.Venkatrama Naidu 61 yrs - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

D.Jaya Chandra

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                               Filing Date:-04-11-2013                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:-13-01-2015.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI

 

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                    SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER        

 

    TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

C.C.No.70 /2013

Between

 

1. Desineni Balaram Naidu,

2. Desineni Amaravathi,

 D.No: 6-239/A,

Haripuram colony,Peruru post,

Tirupathi Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.

 

                                                                                                         …. Complainant

And      

 

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt,Ltd,

Rep.by its Authorised Signatory,

No. 45, ground floor, Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi – 110 044.

 

2. M/s. Ajay Enterprises, rep.by its proprietor,

No. 509, Balaji colony, Tirupathi.

Chittoor  District.

 .                                                                                                       …. Opposite parties

    

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.01.2015and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri D.Jayachandra, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.K.Suresh counsel for the 1st opposite party and  sri.P.Anand  counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

 

                                                                                                      ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for selling the defective television to the complainants.

           2.The brief facts of the case are: The complainants No.1and 2 are wife and husband. The complainants purchased a Samsung 32 inches LED TV on 27.7.2013 with model No. 32F5500 from the second opposite party who is a dealer of first opposite party who is a manufacturer with invoice No.89. The said TV got warranty period of one year. The said TV was worked well hardly for two months up to September and after that the said TV was giving trouble by turned off itself. Hence the complainant made a complaint to the customer care by advice of the second opposite party. The service persons  attended for repairs and replace the circuit Boards on 23.09.2013 which results of no use, again the T.V gets turn off by itself again the complainant gave a complaint to the customer care on 30.9.2013. But the second opposite party has not responded properly and fails to give the reply and the complainant has sent a mail to the opposite party No.1 on 30.9.2013 by complaining the same and requested to rectify the problem in T.V. But after receipt of the said mails the opposite party No.1 fails to do the service and rectify the problem in the T.V and again on 10.10.2013 the complainant sent a mail by demanding the opposite party to replace the T.V or to refund the price of the television otherwise he will take action according to law but after receipt of the said notice also they were not responded no reply the same. Hence he filed this complaint by praying this Honourable Forum to replace the T.V with new one or to repay the sale price of the T.V Rs. 38,400/- with interest 24% per annum from the date of the purchase till the date of realization and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay costs.

            3. The opposite party 1 and 2 came into appearance and filed their written versions as the opposite party No. 2 filed the written version by denying all the allegations made in the complaint except the sale of the said T.V and also stated that the complainants never approached them at any point of time and stated that the entire communications were made between the complainant and opposite party no.1 only.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them hence the complaint liable to be dismissed against them. The opposite party No.1 came into appearance and filed the written version by admitting the sale of the T.V by the complainant on 27.7.2013 and stated that immediately after the receipt of the call from the complainant they deputed one technician to attend the complaint made by the complainant and he attended for service successfully and performed their service up to satisfaction of the complainant. Again on 12.8.2013 he received another complaint from the complainant and sent one technician to check the T.V , the technician found that the signal cable was not adjusted to the specification specified in the instructions manual of the company and signal was adjusted as per the specifications and set made ok on 14.8.2013 up to the satisfaction of the complainants and again on 18.9.2013 he received another call from the complainant and deputed the technician for thorough examination of the LED T.V and found that there  was a problem with PCB (Mother Board), which is not a manufacturing defect and the same was replaced by them on 29.9.2013. And the opposite party No.1 further contended that unfortunately he received another complaint from the complainant on 29.9.2013 itself, immediately they deputed one technician for the service of the said T.V. but the complainant was not permitted the technician to do service and demanded them to refund the cost of the product. Again on 4.10.2013 they received another complaint from the complainant but the said complaint was cancelled on 8.10.2013, as the complainant insisted for refund of price of the T.V or to replace new T.V in the place of old one. The opposite party submitted that they attended for the service and tried to rectify the same and even today they are willing to attend LED TV immediately and make it work without any further inconvenience to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part this complaint is liable to be dismiss with exemplary costs.

           4. On behalf of the complainant No.1 he filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Ex. A1 to Ex. A5.On behalf of the opposite party No.2 N.Murugan,S/o. N. Ayappa, branch commercial head filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Both sides filed their written arguments and heard oral arguments of both sides.

           5.By perusing complaint, written version, affidavits, and documents filed by the both parties the points for consideration are:-

          (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No.1

                &2.

          (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

          (iii).To what result?

           6. Point No:-(i). There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the LED T.V by the complainant, because same was admitted by the opposite parties. After three months of purchase the LED T.V giving trouble by switch off by itself and making inconvenience to the complainant. Hence after the several requests made by the complainant the opposite party attended for service, but fail to do service and get the defect rectified. Hence the complainants suffered a lot by getting the purchase of defective T.V from opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by opposite party No.1 and also stated that the service personnel of the opposite party No.1 fail to do service properly. Hence he constrained to file the present complaint. The opposite party came into appearance and filed the written version stating that immediately after receiving the calls from the complainant they attended for service and rendered the services properly. As per the written version they have stated that on 30.7.2013 they attended for service of the said T.V. After receiving the complaint from the complainant successfully and again on 12.8.2013 they attended for the service of the same T.V and adjusted the signal of the cable as per specifications of the said T.V. Again on 23.9.2013 the technician attended for the service and got changed the PCB Mother Board and get the T.V into perfect condition and also stated at last the complaint of the complainant dated 8.10.13 was cancelled on 14.10.13 as he demanded for repayment of the sale price or to replace the said T.V with new T.V and also contended that there is no deficiency on their part because they attended for service each and every time when the complaint was registered by the complainant. Hence there are no latches on their part and there is no deficiency on their part. But as per the averments in the written version it clearly shows that the opposite party service personnel attended for the service in several times within three months after the purchase of the said T.V and replace the Mother Board also on 29.9.2013 which is a vital part of the T.V, if at all there is no manufacturing defect  but what makes the opposite party to change the Mother Board within a span of  one(1)month, this itself clearly shows that the said T.V is suffered with some manufacturing defect which cannot be rectified and  also in Ex.C1 the report of the opposite party technical engineer who examined the said T.V noticed that one wifi problem is also subsisting  with the T.V. Hence it clearly shows that within the span of three months after the purchase of the T.V the complainant forced to call the service persons several times because the said T.V is not at all worked at any point of time after the service and also noticed several problems like Mother Board signal of the specification in the cable and wifi problem etc. This it clearly shows that the said T.V is suffered with a problem which cannot be rectified by the services conducted by the service people of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties failed to rectify the problem of the television as it is a defective television set.  The complainants who are senior citizens purchased the television for the time pass of their post retirement life. But the purpose was not served because of this defective T.V sold by the opposite party No.2 which was manufactured by the opposite party No.1and also he suffered a lot by sending correspondence to the service personnel to the opposite party No.1 to get the T.V repair, at last the opposite party failed to do the service and failed to rectify the problem. Hence we are of the opinion that the said television sold by the opposite parties is a defective one and there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties accordingly this point is answered.

          7.Point No:-(ii). The complainants purchased the television for time pass of their post retirement life. But purpose is not served because of the defective television and they suffered a lot at the age of 60’s for making correspondence to the opposite parties and also he suffered a lot of mental agony, as the opposite party fail to rectify the defects in the television. The said television got the warranty of one year under Ex.A2 hence the warranty period is in force. Hence the complainants are entitled for the new television in the place of old television. Hence the opposite party is directed to replace the new television of the same model in the place of old television by return back the old television to the opposite parties.

          8.Point No:-(iii). In the result the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties to replace the new television by taking back the old television (or) to repay an amount of Rs.38,400/-(Thirty Eight Thousands Four Hundreds Only) the cost of the television with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.3,000/-(Three thousands only) towards costs. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

          Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 13^th day of January, 2015.          

                   Sd/-                                                                                                       Sd/-

           Lady Member                                                                                           President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1:  Desineni Balaram Naidu ( Chief Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1:  N.Murugan (Evidence Affidavit filed). 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Invoice /Bill No.89 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainants. Dt: 27.07.2013.
2.	Warrantee Card. Dt: 27.07.2013.
3.	User Manual.
4.	A photocopy of Customer Service Record Card issued by the Service Engineer. Dt: 23.09.2013.
5.	Complaint letter sent to the 1st Opposite Party through website and subsequent correspondence. Dt: 03.10.2013.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Photo copy of Service Request Dt: 12.08.2013.
2.	Photo copy of Service Request Dt: 18.09.2013.

 

 

            FORUM DOCUMENT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.C1.	Report of the Mohhamad Nouheer of Gopikrishna Electronics, Tirupati.

                                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

            Copies to: - 1. The complainant.                                                 

                               2. The opposite party.