The appeal No RBR/A/2/2022 and RBR/A/3/2022 are preferred against the Final Order dated 07.12.2017 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in CC No 100 of 2015. As both the appeals have preferred against the same Final Order and for that reason the two appeals are heard analogously and the instant Judgement will cover the fate of both the appeals. The two-appeal case in brief are that one Sandip Kumar Gupta registered a Consumer Complaint against Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Samsung Service Center and E-Zone of Siliguri. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the Complainant Sandip Kumar Gupta purchased a TV set Bearing Model Samsung 48H0033D LED TV from O.P No. 1 retailer E-Zone of Siliguri on 28.01.2015 by paying the purchase price of Rs. 1,30,097.71/- with one year warrantee. The O.P No. 1 was the manufacturer of the TV set and O.P No. 2 was the authorized service center. The TV set was installed at the house of the Complainant on 29.01.2015 and on very next day the said TV set started to blink after starting and on 29.01.2015 the matter was reported to service center. The O.P No.3 did not take the same as a serious concern and accordingly the same problem continued. The Complainant in several occasions brought the said manufacturing defect of the TV set to the notice of the service center by telephone and personal visit but his complaint was not entertained. On 27.07.2015 the TV set suddenly went off in running condition. The Complainant immediately reported the matter to the O.P No. 3 and O.P No. 3 communicated the said information to the O.P No. 2 on 29.07.2015. The O.P No. 2 sent his men to the house of the Complainant to service the said TV and opened the TV set in the house of the Complainant and reported him that electric board of the TV set was defective and required the change and the same would be done within seven days. The O.P No. 2 never lift up to its promise and accordingly after expiry of seven days the Complainant personally visited the O.P No. 2 and contacted with the O.P No. 1 but both O.P No. 2 & 3 could not brought in fruitful response to the Complainant. On 07.08.2015 the Complainant then contacted with O.P No. 1 at his Toll-free No. and lodged a complaint with O.P No. 1. And the O.P No. 1 assured the Complainant to send technicians from O.P. No. 2 to remove the defects of the TV set but neither the O.P No. 2 nor the O.P No. 3 came to the Complainant then the Complainant raised the Complaint to the higher authority  of O.P No. 2 about the such deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant and thereafter men of O.P No. 2 came to the house of the Complainant and change the electric board but no result of removing malfunctioning, scrutiny service found that some other parts was defective and required to be change and accordingly some parts of the TV set was changed but no fruitful result could brought. And thereafter, it was detected that the display panel of the television set was defective and he urged the O.P No. 2 to replace the said TV set with a new one or to refund the purchase price of television in alternative but the O.P No. 2 refused the same at this the Complainant on 10.09.2015 personally visited the O.P No. 2 and O.P No. 3 and asked for replacement of the said TV with a new one of the same model or refund the purchase price of the television in alternative but no result. The further case of the Complainant is that all the Opposite Parties of this case and their authorities were fully aware with the television set was suffering from manufacturing defect and as turned dead and black hardly within six months of his purchase. The Opposite Parties intentionally, unlawfully did not replace the same with a new one of the same model and compelled the Complainant to remain with the said defective TV set and for that reason the Complainant had registered the instant Consumer Complaint. The Consumer Complaint was admitted on merit and all the Opposite Parties were served notice. O.P No. 2 did not turn up to contest the case and O.P Nos. 1 & 3 entered appearance and filed two separate WVs wherein the material averments made in the Complaint have been denied and it has been contended that the Complainant had used the said TV set for more than six months without any complaint and the complaint was registered with the O.P No. 1 on 28.07.2015 and as per the warrantee terms the Opposite Parties had to repair the necessary defects free of cost and they have tried their best to remove the defects of the TV set but the Complainant was reluctant to have a new set on replacement and ultimately has registered a false case. Both the Complainant and O.P No. 1&3 has tendered their evidences, necessary documents was produced and Ld. Forum after conclusion of hearing came into conclusion that the case of the Complainant was established beyond any reasonable doubt and Complainant was entitled to replacement of the TV set with the new one of the same model or get refund of the purchase price in alternative and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded for mental agony and harassment. And Rs. 6,000/- was allowed as litigation cost in favour of the Complainant. Being aggrieved with this order the two appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum was bad in law, defective with full of errors, miss appreciation of evidences and passed the impugned order not vested with law and liable to be set aside. The RBR/A/2/2022 was registered by manufacturer Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and RBR/A/3/2022 has registered by the Retailer E-Zone from where the Complainant has purchased the said TV set. The two appeals were registered in due course and admitted on merit and notice of the two appeals were served to the respondents. The respondents S. K. Gupta in the two appeals had contested the two appeals through Ld. Advocate. The two appeals were heard in presence of Ld. Advocates of all concern.

Decision with reasons

Admittedly, the Complainant Sandip Kumar Gupta has purchased the TV set from E-Zone who was authorized to sell the same as local dealer of Samsung Electronics and does not deny that O.P No. 2 was not authorized service center of Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant whispers that since the date of purchase he found the TV set had manufacturing defect and many repairs were made to remove the defects but ultimately the defects remained in the TV set which was not workable and not to fulfil the purpose of the Complainant to enjoy the program of the TV set in a smooth manner. He ultimately lost all faith for such purchase of the TV set and asked the manufacturer and the dealer to have replacement of the said TV set with a new one which was utterly refused and thereafter by instant Consumer Complaint was registered. The Contesting Opposite Parties in their pleadings mentioned that the first six months since the date of purchase there was no problem in the TV set and there was no complaint was lodged about the defect of the TV set within six months of purchase. This averment is not correct one and it is proved beyond any doubt that for the first time in written the Complainant made aware of the O.P Nos. 1,2 & 3 on 29.07.2015 and the TV set was not functioning well, that is within six months. Rather, the warrantee period of TV set was continued for one year. Ld. Advocate of the appellant E-ZONE mentioned during the course of hearing of argument that the appellant O.P No. 3 was nothing but retailer shop room and dealer of the Opposite Party No. 1. This Opposite Party No. 3 used to sell the electronic goods which is manufactured and supplied by the Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. So, if there was any allegation of manufacturing defect of the set the allegation directly indicates the liability of the manufacturer that is O.P No. 1. It is further mentioned that after expiry of more than six months the first time the Complainant brought to the knowledge about the defect of the TV set and then and then in order to speedy resolution of the problem the E-ZONE had contacted with the manufacturer and the service center for resolving the issue and they had no responsibility in this regard. It is further contended that as per the dealership agreement and the policy of the company Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the appellant had always referred any complaint from the customers to the concern manufacturers for immediate redressal and same process was followed in the present case of respondent Sandip Kumar Gupta. And as the alleged product was procured from one of the most reputed manufacturers and sold it in pre-booked and sealed condition within the expiry date, they had no liability for any inherent defect in the TV set. So, the order against this appellant passed by the Ld. Forum was defective and liable to be set aside.

The Ld. Advocate of the appellant in RBR/A/2/2022 that is Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., mentions that as soon the company came to know about the defect of the TV set, the company immediately had contacted with the authorized service center and dealer for proper repairments of the defect of the TV set at free of cost and no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant was there. He, further mentioned that the respondent No. 1 had always refused to avail the service and he was stubborn to go through the process of repairments of the TV and intended to have a new set by a replacement which was unquestionable at the point of time and Ld. Forum has not considered the factual position in a prudent manner.

In both the appeals the Ld. Advocate of the respondent at the time of his turn mentioned that the Complainant is a bonafide purchaser who in spite of payment of huge money for the purchase of the said TV set could not avail the opportunity to enjoy the TV programs in a smooth way and since the very date of purchase the defect was continued  and the defect was in such a nature which become unrepairable and he was compelled to ask the manufacturers dealer and service center to have replacement of the said TV set with a new one and intentionally the responsible authorities has ignored their responsibility and did not render their proper service in a prudent manner.

After, going through the documentary evidences very carefully particularly the good number of email communications between the parties and scrutinization of the said email correspondents it has become crystal clear that for such defective TV set the Complainant had to face severe problems and he was compelled to made correspondents to resolve the problem but the problem was not properly abated. Rather, the defect of the manufacturing set remained continued and at last the running TV become went off all of a sudden and the electronic board of the TV set since 11.08.2015 was completely black and there was also cropped the problem of panel board.

It is fact that in the open market several manufacturers of TV sets have flooded the market with several brands. Relying on the good will and reputation of Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant had chosen to purchase the TV set manufactured by Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. and for that reason, he has purchased from its dealer the said TV set. But within very short span of time suddenly the TV set went off running condition and after several correspondents has personally visited to the doors of the office of the O.P. The technicians of O.P No. 2 replaced the electronic board of the panel and other parts of the television set but ultimately no good result could be achieved in spite of frequent repairments of the TV set. The Complainant become frustrated and for that reason, he was compelled to express his dissatisfaction over the said TV set and requested the manufacturer and the dealer to have a replacement of the set with a new one and the meaningful ultimatum of a bonafide customer was not addressed in a proper manner and for that reason, the Ld. Forum had rightly observed that there was utter negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the manufacturer, retailer and the authorized service center in rendering good and proper service to a bonafide customer in a reasonable manner and for that reason the instant Consumer Complaint was allowed and the order was passed.

No gross irregularities or unauthorized observation could be reflected in the Judgement of Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri and in the appeal stage it appears that no interference are required over the final verdict delivered by Ld. Forum over the instant Consumer Complaint. Thus, the two appeals have no merit at all and liable to be dismissed. However, as the case is running for a long period and the order of Ld. Forum has yet complied with, a long period has already consumed and a bonafide consumer has suffered a lot. On the other hand, if we strict on letter and spirit of the order to be fulfilled then huge amount as interest at the rate of 9% Per-annum over the total sum of Rs. 1,86,097/- could become unbearable and for that reason. If, the appellants Opposite Parties can comply the order of Ld. Forum within 45 days the appellants will be absolved from the liability of the additional interest of 9% Per-annum over the decretal amount as imposed by the Ld. Forum.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the two appeals that is RBR/A/2/2022 and RBR/A/3/2022 are hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The interest of 9% Per-annum over the decretal amount for non-compliance of the order of the Ld. Forum in due time may be waived if the appellants comply the said order within 45 days from this day.

Let a copy of Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.