Date of Filing: 24.09.2018
Date of Judgment: 21.04.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This is a complaint filed by the Complainant Sri Jata Shankar Mishra under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (referred as O.P.s herein after) namely 1)Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. , 2) Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. and 3)Fundamental Electronics Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in services on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased one Samsung 32’’ LED TV from the O.P. no. 3 on 13.11.2016 on payment of consideration of Rs. 28500/-. On its installation, it was found that the said T.V. was defective as line came over the T.V. screen. On the complaint of the Complainant, T.V. was replaced on 14.11.2016 but was actually delivered on 16.11.2016. But within two years, the said T.V. also started giving problem as the T.V. screen became bluish. The Complainant again informed the matter to Samsung Customer Care who sent an engineer to the residence of the Complainant. The said engineer repaired the panel on 07.02.2018 on payment of service charge of Rs. 708/-. But again same problem occurred on 29.05.2018. The Complainant when called at the service centre, a senior engineer of the said service centre suggested the Complainant to repair the panel on payment of Rs. 18000/- to Rs. 20000/- with service charge of Rs. 708/-. The O.P. no. 2 in spite of warranty period demanded the said sum. So the Complainant then approached to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell and there after filed this complaint praying for directing the O.P. no. 1 & 2 to refund the sum of Rs. 28500/- or to replace the T.V. and further to pay the compensation and litigation expenses.
The Complainant has filed purchase invoice, exchange invoice, job sheet / cash receipt dt. 07.02.2018 and a copy of complaint made before grievance cell.
The O.P. 1 & 2 have contested the case by filing the written- version denying and disputing the allegations made by the Complainant. It is the specific contention of the O.P. that this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as the registered Office of the O.P.’s company is at Gurgaon, Haryana and regional Office is at New Town, Action area-I, Kolkata. The Complainant has not filed any document or expert opinion that there is any manufacturing defect in the subject T.V. It is also contended that the O.P.s provided 12 months comprehensive warranty in case of the LED T.V. and through a special offer, the Complainant availed an extended warranty of 12 months only for the panel of the LED T.V. It is further contended by the O.P.s that there was infestation of ants and / or small insects inside the panel of the LED T.V. and as per warranty policy of the company, the warranty coverage became void and as such any repair or replacement of the said T.V. was subjected to payment of cost. Thus the O.P.s have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The O.P. no. 3 did not take any step in spite of the serving of notice and thus case proceeded ex parte against it.
During the course of the trial, the Complainant filed an affidavit-in-chief which was followed by filing of questionnaire by the O.P.s and reply by the Complainant, but no separate affidavit-in-chief was filed by the O.P.s and they prayed to treat the written version filed by them as evidence. The Complainant refused to file any questionnaire and thus the case was fixed for argument. Both parties have filed their brief notes of arguments.
Thus following points require determination:-
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
All the above mentioned points are taken- up together for a comprehensive discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition.
Purchase of LED T.V. on 13.11.2016 and that it was replaced on the very next day due to the same being defective is not disputed by the O.P.s. The Complainant has also filed the Tax / Purchase invoice dated 13.11.2016 and also the exchange challan dated 14.11.2016. This is also not disputed that the Complainant had availed the extended warranty of 12 months because the O.P.s themselves have contended that the Complainant had availed the special offer of ‘extended’ warranty only for the panel of the LED T.V. So on the date of problem in the panel of the said T.V. i.e. on 29.05.2018, the T.V. was covered under the extended warranty. The only contention of the O.P.s for not repairing the T.V. at that time was because they found that there was infestation of ants/ small insects and T.V. was damaged due to the said reason. Since warranty coverage became void as it was not applicable among other reason also for reason of ‘ defects due to household pets, rats, cockroaches or any other animal or insects’, the Complainant was liable to pay the cost of repair. But in this regard it may be pertinent to point out that the O.P.s have not filed any document that on their last visit/service i.e. on 05.02.2018 they found that the T.V. was damaged due to ants or insects and they had informed about it to the Complainant. The job sheet or cash receipt dated 07.02.2018 filed by the Complainant does not reveal that anywhere it is mentioned by the O.P.s or the service engineer that the damage occurred due to the alleged infestation of ants or insects. The O.P.s were under the obligation to inform the same to the complainant enabling him to take the measure to protect the product from getting it damaged due to alleged ants or insects. So when O.P.s have failed to file any such documents, then suddenly they cannot take the advantage of the policy warranty terms that due to damage by insects, the policy coverage became void. The Complainant being a layman unless told would not know the reason of the T.V. getting damaged. So since on the date of dispute i.e. 29.05.2018 the T.V. in question was under extended warranty, the Complainant was entitled to the repair of the same free of cost.
The O.P.s have contended that under ‘extended’ warranty, the Complainant was only entitled to repairing or replacing of the panel but no such document is forthcoming before this Commission from the side of the O.P.s that the extended warranty restricted only for the ‘panel’. So the demand of Rs. 18000/- to Rs. 20000/- by the O.P.s towards repairing of the T.V. of the Complainant within the warranty period was wrong and rendered deficiency in service on their part. However since the terms of the policy does not allow replacement of entire T.V. or refund unless manufacturing defects, the Complainant is entitled to repair of the T.V. by replacing the parts therein which was defective. For the harassment, he is also entitled to the compensation and since he has been compelled to file this case, he is also entitled to the litigation cost. Since the O.P. no. 3 who appears to be the dealer and sold the T.V. to the Complainant is also liable to pay the compensation because it is under the obligation and duty to keep good products and provide good product to the customer as it gets commission from the manufacturing company. So all the O.P.s are liable to pay compensation. An amount of Rs. 15000/- will be justified as compensation.
Before parting with the judgement, it may be pertinent to point out that the O.P. no. 1 & 2 have challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission but it is evident from the cause -title of the Complaint that the O.P. no. 3 has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Thus the contention of the O.P. no. 1 & 2 that this Commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted.
Hence
Ordered
CC/570/2018 is allowed on contest against O.P. No. 1 & 2 and ex parte against the O.P. no. 3. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 are directed to repair the T.V. in question of the Complainant within two months from this date and further provide extended warranty for the said T.V. for a further period of one year from the date of repairing of the T.V. and it becomes operational. All the O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 15000/- as compensation to the Complainant and the O.P. No. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 10000/-, within the aforesaid period of two months.
