Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

164/2010

C.S.Metha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Officer Incharge & others - Opp.Party(s)

J.Dharmarajan

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.03.2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.164/2010

WEDNESDAY THIS  11^TH  DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

C.S.Mehta,

Renganivas,

No.20, Barnabi Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.                     .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

1. Samsung India,

Officer In Charge,

Samsung Customer Care Centre,

6^th Floor, IFCI Tower,

Nehru Palace – New Delhi 110 019.

 

2. Khivraj & Co.,

“Khivrai Mansion,”

738, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Digital Waves,

No.6, 2^nd Main Road,

CIT Colony, Mylapore,

Chennai 600 004.                                    .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                :    M/s.N.L.Rajah & J.Dharmarajan      

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 3   :    M/s. V.V.Giridhar  

For opposite party-2                    :    Exparte.

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to replace the T.V.set and also pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with interest and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  he purchased one Samsung projection TV model No.SP54T8 + SL NO.ZCX500016 – Samsung Home Theatre system model on HTDB120 at cost of Rs.1,15,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 13.10.2004.   The complainant further state that  the complainant himself a cricket player during young years and fond of cricket game even at this age of 75 years.    The complainant experienced some minor defects few months later from the date of purchase i.e. 13.10.2004.   Since the defective function of the T.V. set was noticed the complainant informed the opposite party on 7.5.2007 for due rectification.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2255/-  to the 2^nd opposite party and rectified the defects.  While rectifying the defects the 2^nd opposite party issued invoice No.3404 dated 7.5.2007 has recorded that “pick up” being the defect; which is a manufacturing defect.    The complainant took the T.V. set to the 2^nd opposite party for rectifying the defects.  The opposite party  after review of the defective set issued a work order No.9DWA1904 dated 20.1.2009 quoting “ INT NO PICTURE”.  Thereafter the opposite party has not handed over the T.V. Set after duly rectified.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party failed and neglected to return the T.V Set; after due rectification of the defects.    As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service & unfair trade practice  and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party-1 and adopted by the 3^rd opposite party are as follows:

        The opposite parties denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.    It is absolutely false to say that the T.V. suffered from manufacturing defect for it had been functioning proper.    The complainant admits that he complained of defects few months after purchase, thereafter a complaint is only given on 7.5.2007.   The opposite parties state that  admitted by the complainant himself that T.V. failed to function again from 20.1.2009 onwards when it was bought on 13.10.2004.   This complaint filed much beyond warranty is barred by limitation.    This opposite party had attended to complaints as aforesaid, yet the complainant who was well aware of the realities had filed this complaint alleging deficiency without any basis.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party  and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.       Inspite of service of notice the  2^nd opposite party  called absent and set exparte.                

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of 1^st & 3^rd opposite parties filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5.   The points for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to replace the T.V. Set  

    of same model as prayed for ?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled  a sum of      

     Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with interest and

     cost as prayed for?

 

 

6.      POINTS 1 & 2:-

 

          Heard both sides.  Perused the records.   Admittedly the complainant purchased one Samsung projection TV model No.SP54T8 + SL NO.ZCX500016 – Samsung Home Theatre system model on HTDB120 at cost of Rs.1,15,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party on 13.10.2004 as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.   The complainant further contended that he was a cricket player during young years and fond of cricket game even at this age 75 years.    The complainant experienced some minor defects few months later from the date of purchase i.e. 13.10.2004.   But the complainant has not produced any record.   Since the defective function of the T.V. set was noticed the complainant informed the opposite party on 7.5.2007 for due rectification.   The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2255/-  to the 2^nd opposite party and rectified the defects.  While rectifying the defects the 2^nd opposite party issued invoice No.3404 dated 7.5.2007 has recorded that “pick up” being the defect; which is a manufacturing defect.    The complainant took the T.V. set to the 2^nd opposite party for rectifying the defects.  The opposite party  after review of the defective set issued a work order No.9DWA1904 dated 20.1.2009 quoting “ INT NO PICTURE”.  Thereafter the opposite party has not handed over the T.V. Set after duly rectified.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party failed and neglected to return the T.V Set; after due rectification of the defects.   Hence the complainant was constrained to file this compliant for replacing the T.V.Set with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that  there is no manufacturing defects, the alleged defects were duly rectified and  returned the T.V. to the complainant.    The T.V.Set having warranty of 5 year by the complainant is false.  But on a careful perusal of the records there is no warranty card produced before this forum; in Ex.A4 the warranty card the details are blank.  In this case warranty is not a question also.   But the main question is whether the T.V.set having manufacturing defect or not.   The opposite party while admitted that there is a manufacturing a defect,  the complainant took the T.V.set and handed over to the 2^nd opposite party for due rectification of defects is not specifically denied.   But till date the 2^nd opposite party has not returned the T.V.set after due rectification proves the deficiency in service.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation is imaginary and exorbitant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally  liable  to replace the T.V. with a new brand T.V. set of the same model and shall pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  to the complainant and points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3  are jointly and severally liable to replace the T.V with a new brand T.V. set of the same model and shall pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

 

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^rd day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  13.10.2004 - Copy of bill No.3276 for Rs.1,15,000/-

Ex.A2- 13.10.2004         - Copy of receipt for Rs.1,15,000/-

Ex.A3- 7.5.2007    - Copy of service invoice cum cash receipt.

Ex.A4- 20.1.2009  -  Copy of work order.

         

Opposite parties’ side document: -     

.. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.