DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member            Date of filing 24/01/2022    

CC/13/2022

Ameer Abbas.M

Farsana Manzil

Darshanapuri Colony, Chandra Nagar

Palakkad - 678 007

(Party in person)                                                      -       Complainant

V/s

1.   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

20th to 24th Floor

Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road, Sector - 43

DLF phase V

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 202

(By Adv. Mohamed Azharudeen)

2.   Uniqare (Exclusive Samsung Service Centre)

No. 30/253, Ground Floor

West Yakkara, Chungam Junction

Palakkad – 678 001

(By Adv. Manoj Ambatt)

3.   Reliance Digital

M-20, Stadium Bypass Road

Kunnathur med

Palakkad - 678 001                                                   -        Opposite parties

(Ex-parte)                

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.   Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant purchased a Samsung 50TU8000 UHD TV on 12/08/2020 from the third opposite party for Rs. 49,795/-  The TV was having product warranty of one year and TV panel warranty of 2 years.  The product was installed at the complainant's residence on 16th August, 2020, by the service engineer of the first opposite party.

The TV started showing defects such as restarting automatically on 08/09/2021.  Complaint was registered and the service team of the first opposite party came and rectified the same and charged Rs. 1,180/- as the product warranty has already expired.

The problem recurred and the service team came and identified the problem as panel defect and agreed to replace the panel under warranty.  After a week the first opposite party informed their inability to replace the panel due to non availability and proposed for a cash back coupon for TV return with 17% depreciation.

The offer was not acceptable to the complainant, since it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to cure the defect under warranty.  All his follow up efforts with the opposite parties failed and hence approached this Commission seeking relief to the tune of Rs. 1,99,795/-

2.   Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  None of them filed version within the statutory period.  Hence their chance was forfeited.  The case was referred to adalath held on 27/05/2022, but a settlement couldn't be reached.  The 2^nd opposite party filed IA 240/22 requesting to accept the version which was rejected.  The first opposite party filed IA 421/22 stating that they have already filed the version within the statutory period and hence requesting to accept their version filed on 27/05/22.  This IA was allowed and their version was taken on record.  The contention of 1^st opposite party is that they offered the 17% discount coupon only because of the non availability of the spare in the market.  Subsequently they agreed for a depreciation of 12% also, which was again not acceptable to the complainant.  When the part was available in the market, they offered to replace the defective part, but the complainant insisted for refund and compensation.

3.   Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the TV purchased by the complainant is suffering from any manufacturing defect?
2. Whether the opposite parties failed to give after sales service as per the terms of warranty?
3.  Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. Reliefs as compensation & cost if any?

4.   As requested by the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed by this Commission to inspect the TV and give a status report in relation to the allegations in the complaint.  The Expert Commissioner submitted his report on 29/12/2022.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext. A1 to A5 as evidence.  A1 is invoice/bill for the TV purchased, A2 is the e-mail from the 1st opposite party offering 17% cash back coupon, A3 is the screen shots of various messages sent by 1^st opposite party, A4 is the cash receipt issued by 2nd opposite party for Rs. 1,180/- for the service on 09/09/21.  A5 is the pen drive containing the video of the defect of the TV.  The opposite parties didn't raise any objections to these documents as well as the expert commission report.

5.  Issue 1, 2 & 3

It is an admitted fact that the TV in question is having a panel defect.  This has been further confirmed by the expert commissioner in his report dated 29/12/2022.  Ext. A2 is the offer by the first opposite for 17% cash back coupon.  The inability of the opposite party to cure the defect of the product during the warranty period is a sure case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The reason quoted is the non availability of the spare in the market and such an issue of non availability with in a period of just over one year from the date of purchase is not all an acceptable excuse. Further, whether to accept the cash back coupon or not is the absolute personal discretion of the complainant.

6.  Issue 4 & 5

As the deficiency in service is established as narrated above the complainant is entitled to reliefs for deficiency in service and the resultant mental agony suffered by the complainant.

7.   Resultantly, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

1. The opposite party 1 is directed to refund Rs. 49,795/- being the cost of TV along with interest @ 10% per annum from 12/08/2020 till the date of payment.
2. The opposite party 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards deficiency in service and resultant mental agony &
3. Rs. 10,000/- towards cost.

The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st day May, 2023.

                                                                                        Sd/-                   

                                                                        Vinay Menon V

                                                 President 

 Sd/-

                                                   Vidya A

                             Member   

 Sd/-

                                                                              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                      Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Invoice/bill for the TV purchased.

Ext. A2: Copy of e-mail received from

             20/12/2021

Ext. A3: Screenshots of various messages sent by 1^st opposite party.

Ext. A4: Cash receipt of Rs. 1,180/- dated 09/09/2021 issued by UNIQARE.

Ext. A5: Pen drive containing the video of the defect of the TV.       

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs. 10,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.