BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 11^st DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER:

1.Thiscomplaint is filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking the following reliefs.

a) To direct the Opposite parties to replace SAMSUNG TV or refund an amount of Rs.70,900/-  and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards insufficient service/damages, harassment caused by the Ops .

c) Pass any other order/orders in favour of the complainants are against the Opposite parties as may be deemed just, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case of complainant in brief is as under.

The complainant had purchased Samsung TV on 03.10.2020 vide model no.UA50TU8000KXXL, Panel Sl. No.OAE936TN902267 for a sum of Rs.70,900/-. The said TV  was for a warrant period of one year and two years for the display panel of the TV unit. When the TV was within the warranty. But during the month of June-2021 the TV display started turning black. The complainant did not understand the problem, but in the month of July-2021 TV display turned more black and appeared horizontal and vertical grid lines on display. The complainant realized that there are serious problems in the TV display.  The complainant requested the OP service center on 06.07.2021, then the OP service engineer visited the complainant’s house on 07.07.2021 and confirmed that it was a manufacturing defect and assured him that he will fix  the problem  on or before 12.07.202. But even after 15 days the company did not respond. Further, the complainant repeatedly called the OP service centre to raise the complaint requesting to solve the issue many times. The OP company did not responded properly and on 29^th day from the date of raising the complaint the company. Service engineer came to the complainant’s house by bringing 48” LED display unit to replace 50” LED display unit. When the complainant questioned the same, the OP service engineer did not responded properly. Though the complainant sent back the engineer, further the complainant sent series of emails to Samsung company on 11.08.2021 followed by series of  mails till 03.09.2021, for which the OP have not replied through mails even after sending mails and OP did not responded in order to replace the Samsung TV. The complainant left with no other option filed the present complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP-1 not appeared and placed Exparte. OP-2 appeared and filed version. An opportunity was given to the complainant to file affidavit evidence, but complainant did not file his affidavit evidence.  OP-2 filed affidavit evidence and examined as RW1 and Exhibits R1 to R3 are marked. Advocate for OP-2 files written arguments and heard advocate for OP-2.

4. The following points arises for our consideration.

1. Whether complainants proves deficiency of service/negligence on the part of the OP?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs mentioned in the complainant?

3. What Order?

5. Our answer to the above points are as under

Point No.1 & 2: Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:  Per final order.

                               REASONS

6. Point No.1 & 2: It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased Samsung TV on 03.10.2020 vide model no.UA50TU8000KXXL, Panel Sl. No.OAE936TN902267 for a sum of Rs.70,900/- and it was under warranty and the warranty would be ended on 03.10.2021. But, in the month of June-2021, the TV display of the complainant started turning black, as the complainant did not understand the problem, but in the month of July-2021 again TV display turned more black and appeared horizontal and vertical grid lines on the display and complainant requested the OP service centre on 06.07.202, then the OP service engineer visited the complainant’s house on 07.07.2021 and confirmed the complainant that there was manufacturing defect and he is going to fix the problem on or before 12.07.2021. But, even after OP representative  did not responded, again the complainant repeatedly called OP service center  and complainant requested to resolve the problem as early as possible., but OP service centre did not responded properly and after lapse of 29 days after raising the complaint, the OP company  service representative came to the complainant’s house bringing 48” LED display unit to replace 50” LED display of the complainant, for which the complainant did not agree. However, OP-2 company  being the Head office  and OP-1 is its branch office i.e. manufacturer and retailer respectively.

7. Further under section 38 Rule 3(c)  of C.P. Act, where the complainant fails to appear and take action to represent his case within time given by this commission, then the complaint is to be decided on merits if  the complainant fails to appear. Under such circumstances, the cases should be processed on the available documents and records.

8.  Further, Op-2 states that  though service engineer gone to the complainants house, but the complainant restrained the service engineer to complete the service work which was free of cost. Now crux of the matter is that whether the OP has provided appropriate service to the complainant  by providing 50” LED display or 48” LED display as contended by the complainant.  On perusing  the documents of  the OP that  complainant has placed order for  50” LED panel in July 2021, OP also supplied  same and OP has produced tax invoice, to that effect which  is marked as R5. Though service engineer visited complainant’s house with 50”LED TV  with 48” LED box and OP contended that though it had provided 50” LED display, but complainant got confused by seeing 48” LED box. Further, OP had taken contention that the TV provided to the complainant was one year warranty and warranty would expire on 02.10.2021. However, the request made by the complainant was received by the OP on 06.07.2021 and service engineer visited complainant’s house on 07.07.2021 as per annexure R3 produced depicts the same. And the  defect is curable and is repairable and there is delay in attending the service by the OP and even today the OP is ready to replace  the TV display as a goodwill gesture. As the TV panel is within the warranty and complainant had used the said TV for more than 8 to 9 months and after that there was a problem. Though OP provided service to the said TV, but the complainant had not provided the opportunity to OP to replace the same. However, OP provided service and as a  goodwill gesture ready to replace the TV panel but best known to the complainant is not ready to  replace the same. Further, complainant sought for refund of the amount or replace Samsung TV, which is not fair, against the principles of natural justice.  The complainant utilized the TV for more than 8 to 9 months, but TV panel is in warranty period. As such the OP is directed to replace TV panel by 50” Panel Sl. No.OAE936TN902267 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and further the complainant is filed with the assistance of advocate and the complainant is entitled for cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-.

9. Point No.1 & 2: Accordingly, we answer the point No. & 2 in Affirmative in part.  

10.Point No.3:- In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace TV panel of complainant  by 50” Panel Sl. No.OAE936TN902267.
3. OPs are  directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards as cost of litigation.
4. The OPs shall comply this order within 60 days from this date. 
5. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 11^th day of April, 2022).

(H.JANARDHAN)                                      (K.S.BILAGI)

    MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP Nos.2 which are as follows:-