IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31stday of March, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 23/2017 (filed on 21-01-2017)
Petitioner : Prince Bhaskar,
Sulochanasadanam,
(Puthumalakuzhiyil)
Karikkode P.O.
Mulakkulam - 686610
(Adv. T.R. Sathian)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
20 to 24th Floor,
Two Horizon Centre,
Golf Course Road,
Sector 43, DLF – PH/
Gurgaon, Hariyana – 122202.
(Adv. Manu J. Varappally)
2) Orappankal Times,
Market Junction,
Peruva, Pin – 686 610
Mulakkulam
(Adv. K.A. Bijoy)
3) United India Insurance Company,
Parakkala Building,
Micro Office, Kuruppanthara,
ManjoorP.O.Pin - 686603
(Adv. Girija P.G.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
On 18-6-2011, complainant purchased a Sumsung NA 32D580K 32 inch LCD television from the second opposite party for Rs.34,538. The warranty period is for 5 years from the date ofpurchase. On 22-5-2016 the panel of the said TV becamedefunctive. It was communicated to the opposite parties. Thetelevision was insured with the third opposite party. Theinsurance coverage is for the entire set, which is also applicableto the total loss of the TV set, during the period of insurance.
On receiving the information the second opposite party taken thecustody of the television and the same is still in the custody withthem. In spite of the repeated request the first and secondopposite parties declined to rectify the defects, though theinsurance company was inclined to compensate the price of thedefective part of the TV. It is realized that the present defect ofthe TV is irreparable which amounts to total loss of the TV.
Though the several e- mails were sent to the second oppositeparty for which they gave deaf ears for several months, raising one orother lame excuses. On 27-7-2016 , the first and second oppositeparties informed the complainant that the faulty component ofthe TV is not available in open market and the manufacturerhad stopped the production of the said component of the saidseries of Samsung LCD televisions. It is further informed thatthe full repayment of the purchase price is not possible due tothe depreciation. On 27-7-2016 the first and second oppositeparties issued a mail to the complainant stating that the repairingof the TV is impossible and accordingly they offered Rs.3,300/-to the complainant towards the compensation. It is averred inthe complaint that at the time of purchase of the TV the first andsecond opposite parties were not informed the possibility of thestoppage of the production of any of the components of the TVand the complainant was also incapable of anticipating suchcontingency, in future while purchasing the TV. Since thedefects of the TV happened during the warranty period, thefirst and second opposite parties were duty bound to rectifydefects or even replace it with a good condition to thecomplainant. It is averred in the complaint that even after expiryof warranty period the first and second opposite parties are dutybond to provide the required after sale services to its customers.
Due to the failure of the first and second opposite parties torectify the defect the complainant was constrained to purchaseanother TV for Rs.46,350/-. According to the complainant the actof the first and second opposite parties amounts to deficiency inservice. Hence this complaint is filed for refund of Rs.34,538along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
Upon notice from this forum opposite parties appeared beforethe forum and filed version.
Version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The complaint is misconceived and groundless. Thecomplainant had purchased Sumsung LCD television on 18-6-2011 from the second opposite party for a consideration of Rs.34,538/. The television became out of order after a period of 5years from the date of purchase. The complainant had alsolodged a complaint with the opposite parties and the defects ifany were attended to and as certain parts were unavailable, thecomplainant was offered depreciative refund as per the company policy. There were no manufacturing defects in theTV. The opposite parties have acted as per the terms andconditions of warranty and in compliance with the law.
Second opposite party filed version contenting as follows:
The authorised service center of the first opposite party where the TV of the complainant was serviced is not a party to the complaint and hencethe complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary party. Thesecond opposite party is a proprietary concern selling electricaland electronic items. The second opposite party is not anauthorised franchisee or dealer of the first opposite party andundertaking or providing any kind of service of any of articlessold by them. The petitioner has the knowledge regarding theauthorised service centre of the first opposite party andaccordingly he himself entrusted the TV to the authorized service centre to get repaired. Since the component is notavailable the unit is beyond repair.
The purchase of the TV by the complainant on 18-6-2011 isadmitted. To the knowledge of the second opposite party, thewarranty period was only one year from the date of purchaseand accordingly the warranty was ended on 18-6-2012.Warranty card is not produced by the complainant.
In July 2016 the complainant contacted this second oppositeparty and informed that the TV is not working. Then the secondopposite party informed the complainant to contact with theauthorised service centre. Accordingly the complainantcontacted the service centre and the service engineers of thefirst opposite party inspected the TV but they could not rectifythe defects and requested the complainant to bring the TV atservice centre. Complainant himself entrusted the TV to theservice centre and thereafter the possession of the TV was with the service centre. The second opposite party nevertaken the custody of the TV.
It is the duty of the third opposite party to pay the price of theTV and compensate the complainant in case of damages or losssustained to the TV. The stoppage of the production of thecomponent or the said model of the TV is a policy of itsmanufacturer and not due to the fault of the second oppositeparty. According to the second opposite party that every LEDTV has a maximum life below 5 years. There is no deficiency inservice on the part of the second opposite party.
Version of the third opposite party is as follows:
The complainant had insured his 32” LCD TV with the year ofmanufacturing as 2011 for a period from 10/15 to 30-9-2016 vide house hold insurance policy subject to terms andconditions. The complainant neither submitted any claim formto the third opposite party nor has submitted any details orestimate regarding the loss to the third opposite party. All theother averments in the complaint is not known to the thirdopposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part ofthe third opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit inn lieu of chief examinationand marked exhibit A1 to A5. The Opposite parties filedseparate proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exhibit B1is marked from the side of the third opposite party. Nodocumentary evidence is produced by the first and secondopposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint,version and evidence on record wewould like to consider the following points.
(1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of theopposite party?
(2) If so what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that on 18-6-2011, complainantpurchased a Sumsung NA 32D 580K 32 inch LCD televisionfrom the second opposite party for Rs.34,538/-. Exhibit A1 is theretail invoice issued by the second opposite party on 18-6-2011to the complainant. The television was insured with the thirdopposite party vide exhibit A3 policy certificate. On perusal ofexhibit A3 and B1 which none other than exhibitA3 we can seethat the complainant had got insured the said TV with thirdopposite party for a sum assured of Rs.35,000/-. There is nodispute on the fact that on 22-5-2016 the TV became defectiveand could not be rectified due to the non-availability of thecomponents in the market. The first opposite party who is themanufacturer admitted in the version and proof affidavit that thedefects were attended to and as certain parts were unavailable,the complainant was offered depreciative refund as per the theirpolicy. Exhibit A2 (a) proves that the authorised service centreof the first opposite party informed the complainant that the TVis not reparable due to non availability of the parts. Accordingto the complainant the first opposite party offered a meagre sumof Rs.3,300/- towards the compensation. Exhibit A2(b) is theemail sent by the first opposite party to the complainant statingthe reasons for the non-repairing of the TV and request forcertain documents to refund the depreciated value to thecomplainant.
In the present case, no doubt the complainant spent an amountof Rs.34,538 /- for the purchase of LED TV on 18-6-2011, yetdue to change in technology it was beyond the reach of theparties to provide the spare part, which became defective. It was,under these circumstances that Opposite Parties No.1 offered torefund depreciated value of the price paid taking into accountthe age of the LED TV, in question, but the same was rejectedby the complainant. Even, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stated intheir written version that the TV set was purchased by thecomplainant on 18-6-2011 and it carried a warranty of one year,
which expired on 18-6-2012 . It was not the case of thecomplainant that any defect took place during the warrantyperiod. The plea of the complainant is that firstly, the complaintwas lodged by him regarding defect in the LED TV in the monthof July 2016 i.e. after a period of five years of its purchase. So,the request of the complainant regarding reimbursement of theprice of the product, was not genuine because the complainantused the LED TV, in question, approximately for a period offive years, without there being any problem, which clearlyproved that it did not have any inherent manufacturing defect.
It is pertinent to note that though the first opposite partysubmitted that they offered depreciated value as per the theirpolicy, neither in version nor in proof affidavit they stated their terms and conditions regarding the calculation ofdepreciated value and the amount which was offered by them tothe complainant.
How long a manufacturer is liable to make spare parts availablefor repairing is nowhere mentioned in law. However, fromvarious judgments of apex forum it is now almost settled in lawthat manufacturers have to make spares and consumablesavailable during a product’s expected lifespan. Non availabilityof parts during the expected life span of the product amounts todeficiency in service from part of the first opposite party. Nodoubt complainant had suffered much mental agony andhardship due to the deficient act of the first opposite party.
Considering the above discussed fact and nature of thecomplaint we are of the opinion that allowing a depreciation value 15% Rs.34,538/- will meet the ends of justice.
In view of the fore goings, we are of the opinion that the presentComplaint must succeed partly. The same is accordingly partlyallowed.
- Thus we hereby direct the first Opposite Party torefund Rs.5,180 as 15% of Rs.34,538 /-
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account ofdeficiency in service
and causing mental and physicalharassment to the Complainant;
(3) To pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation;
Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of March, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 –Copy of bill dtd.18-06-11 issued by 2nd opposite party
A2 – Copy of customer service record card issued by 1st opposite party
A2 (a)– Panel complaint
A2 (b and c) – E-mail copies
A3 – Copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions
A4 – Invoice bill dtd.18-06-11 issued by 2nd opposite party
A5 – Customer service record card
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of policy with terms and conditions
By Order
Assistant Registrar
