Karnataka

Gadag

CC/13/2014

Govindagouda K Patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Inida Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.R.Kulkarni

27 Feb 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against Ops. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant had purchased the T.V. from OP No.2 on 20.02.2013, T.V. model Samsung 21 inches A-630 by paying Rs.7,600/- including taxes. When the Complainant bought the T.V. to his home, the Complainant installed the same, following the instructions provided by the Manufacturer. After 06 days of the purchase, the T.V. stop functioning, there was no display on the screen of the T.V. same was informed to OP No.1 and 2, the OP No.1 and 2 advised the Complainant to bring back the T.V. to the shop of the OP No.2. Following the advice of the Ops, the Complainant handed over the T.V. to the OP No.2 in his shop for rectifying the problem. The Complainant visited the shop of OP No.2 to collect the T.V., but the OP No.2 instead of getting repaired the same, the OP No.2 dragging the days assuring the Complainant that problem will be rectified.

 

3.      The Complainant being a businessman he had purchased the T.V. to watch the share market, even after buying the T.V. it was useless. From which the Complainant had faced a financial loss and mental agony.

 

4.      The Complainant had got the cable connection from cable operator on 01.03.2013 which was active till 01.12.2013. For which, that the Complainant had paid Rs.100/- per month, without the T.V. the Complainant had unnecessary paid the cable bill of Rs.900/- in total. Even after several visits of the Complainant to Ops-shop to collect the repaired T.V., but the OP No.2 failed to rectify the problem. Hence, the Complainant issued a legal notice to OP No.1 and 2 for which they have not replied. Hence, the Complainant has filed present Complaint and sought order for a new T.V. from the Ops and the compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cable charge of Rs.900/- and the litigation charges and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit. 

 

5.      The predecessor on seat registered the Complaint and notice were ordered as such OP No.1 appeared through his advocate and filed his Vakalat and Written Version.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version:

While filing the Written Version, OP No.1 stated that he is not aware of above sale of the Samsung T.V. to the Complainant. Further, OP No.1 disputed that the functioning of the T.V. had stop within 06 days of the purchase should be proved by the Complainant. OP No.1 submits that T.V. having a one year Warranty period which will expire on 21.02.2013, the Complainant filed in March, 2014 which is beyond the warranty period. Hence, this Complaint is to be rejected.

 

6.      Further, OP No.1 denied that the Complainant had not at all informed the Complainant to bring the T.V. to OP No.2’s shop or not said to bring the T.V. to OP No.2’s shop. If the Complainant has face any problem he would have approach the authorised Service Centre for necessary service. OP No.2 is the Dealer, but he is not an authorized to provide service, if a customer approaches him for service. Hence, the warranty benefit is ceases.

 

7.      Further, OP No.1 submits that Complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the Complaint. The T.V. is used for commercial purpose to watch the share marketing information. Since, it is commercial activity, the Complainant cannot be considered as a “Consumer”.

 

8.      Further, OP submits that the Complainant has not said any legitimate ground for replacement or refund of T.V. price along with compensation and damages nor filed any expert report for the defect as alleged in the Complaint. Hence, OP No.1 had please to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

 

9.      In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined as CW1 in support of the allegation the documents produced are Cash Invoice marked as Exhibit P1, Warranty Card marked as Exhibit P2, Cable Connection Card as Exhibit P3, Registered Postal Receipt P4, Postal Acknowledgement P5, another Receipt P6, copy of the legal notice P7 and hand written acknowledgement said to be issued by OP No.2 which had not been marked. On the other hand, OP No.1 filed Written Version and Senior Manager Customer Satisfaction, Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. had swear on behalf of OP No.1 and filed affidavit and filed Written Argument. On perusing of the above documents and arguments heard on both the sides, we conceived that the disputes is regarding to the stoppage of functioning T.V. within the purchase of 06 days, the Complainant was informed to the OP No.1 and 2 and the T.V. had handed over to OP No.2 for rectification inspite of several visits by the Complainant to OP No.2’s-Shop, the OP No.2 had not rectified the problem and drag the days by assuring the Complainant that the T.V. will be repaired. The OP No.1 had denied all averments made in the Complaint. This being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:

1.	Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2.	Whether there is any deficiency of service by the Ops as alleged in the Complaint?
3.	Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as claimed?
4.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Affirmative,

Point No.3 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.4 – As per the final order.

 

11.    On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:

                        R E A S O N S

 12.  POINT NO.1:  The Complainant had produced the Cash Invoice bearing Invoice No.1624, dated: 20.02.2013 issued by the OP No.2 in the name of the Complainant for purchasing the T.V. which clearly establishes that the Complainant purchased the said T.V. and Complainant installed the T.V. in his home to show that he has produced the Cable Card its belong to one Sri.Basaveshwar Cable Network, Kurtakoti and the Complainant given his residential address as same as Kurtakoti only. Such being the fact, the Complainant was not installed the T.V. at any his business place like, Office or else any shop. The purchase of T.V. itself build a relationship of Purchaser and Seller between the Complainant and the OP No.2, the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the product purchased by the Complainant who had alleged that viewing of Share Market in T.V. is a commercial purpose, the T.V. purchased by the Complainant was installed in his home to view the program relying in the T.V. The Share Market program can only just viewed in the T.V. no other commercial activity can be done with the T.V., the online buying or selling cannot be done on T.V. Hence, it is purely for domestic purpose. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in affirmative.   

 

          13.  POINT No.2:  The OP No.1 while arguing had denied the entire allegation made by the Complainant in his Complaint that the OP No.1 is not aware of purchase or non-functioning of T.V. The OP No.1 is the Manufacturer of the Samsung T.V. purchased by the Complainant as the OP No.2 is the Dealer of OP No.1. The Complainant had purchased the said T.V. on 20.02.2013 from OP No.2 which had stopped functioning within 06 days of purchase. The Complainant had approach the OP No.2 for rectification of the T.V. the Complainant was directly connected to the OP No.2, because the Complainant had purchase the same from OP No.2. As per the direction of the OP No.2 the Complainant had handed over the T.V. to OP No.2 for repairs. When the OP No.2 had not repaired the T.V. for long period of about 10 months, the Complainant had issued a legal notice through his counsel to OP No.1 and 2 sating the non-function of the T.V. as per the Written Version filed by the OP No.1 it cannot be accepted that the OP No.1 was not aware of the non-functioning of the T.V. but the Ops have not replied to the legal notice issued by the Complainant, it is clear that the OP No.1 had received the notice as per the document placed before the Forum i.e. Exhibit P5, OP No.1 or OP No.2 had not taken any steps to prove that the T.V. is in a good condition. There was a sufficient time to both the Ops to clarify and filed an Expert Opinion before the Forum to show that the said T.V. is in a good condition. Such being the case, after receiving a legal notice Ops might have look after the problem, but the Ops have not done so. OP No.2 was not present before the Forum after the service of the notice from the Forum. The OP No.1 has stated in his Written Version that the Complainant have free service benefit within the warranty period the customer had approach a particular authorised Service Center for necessary service. The OP have informed the same to the Complainant through a letter after receiving the legal notice and the responsibility of the Manufacturer does not ceases just giving the Warranty Card along with their products. The Complainant have handed over the T.V. for rectification to OP No.2 within six days of purchase. Hence, the T.V. was handed over for rectification within the warrant period. 

              

          14.    The Cash Paid Receipt bearing No.1624 dated: 23.02.2013 for Rs.7,600/- establishes that the Complainant had purchased a Samsung T.V. 21 inches A/530 clearly establishes that the Complainant had purchase the above said T.V. from OP No.2’s-Shop along with the T.V. Warranty Card also had been issued.

 

          15.   The non-functioning of the T.V. had been informed to the OP NO.2 and handed over the T.V. for repair to OP No.2, i.e. the Dealer of the OP No.1, OP No.2 have himself send the T.V. for repair for an authorised Service Center. But, intention of the OP No.2 is best known to him he had only drag the days and even he has not reply to the notice sent by the Complainant or by the Forum. Till now the T.V. is with OP No.2 even it was not denied by the OP No.1 also since the OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 they have day today communication with the business of his company. This clearly establishes that the Ops have committed deficiency in service. Hence, we answer to Point No.2 in affirmative.

 

          16.  POINT NO.3:  As per the above discussion, the Complainant purchased a T.V. from OP No.2 this proved that Ops have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for partial relief. We answer to Point No.3 in partially affirmative.

         

          17.  POINT NO.4:    In the result of the above findings, we deliver the following:        

 

//ORDER//

        1. The complaint is allowed partially.

 

2.  The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,600/- (Rupees seven thousand six hundred) being the cost of the T.V. along with the interest at 06% per annum from the date of this Complaint within 30 days.

 

          3.   The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards the litigation charges.

 

4.   The Ops are directed to comply this Order within 30 days, failing which Ops are liable to pay interest at 10% per annum on the cost of T.V. of Rs.7,600/-  till realization.

5.   Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.   

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 27^th day of February, 2016)

Sd/-       Member

Sd/- Member

Sd/-         President