Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/36/2018

Meenachi,W/o.T.A.Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

SREES, Rep by Manager,TVS Electronic Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.KPC.Mogan

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on  :14.03.2018

                                                                    Date of disposal             : 06.09.2022        

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                     : PRESIDENT

                                   THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.36/2018

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 06^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Meenachi,

W/o. T.A.Saravanan,

No.15, 2^nd Palla Street,

Vyasarpadi,

Chennai-600 039.                                                          …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

1.       Srees,

          Rep by Manager,

          (Samsung Plaza)

          No.2, Balfour Raod,

          Kellys,

          Chennai-600 063.

 

2.       TVS Electronics Limited,

          Rep by Manager,

          Ground Floor, Bascon Tower,

          Opposite Valluvar Kottam,

          Kodambakkam High Road,

          Chennai-600 034.

 

3.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

          No.2,3 & 4^th floor, Tower ‘C’

          Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43,

          Gurgaon-122 009,          Haryana.                                  …. Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.K.P.C.Mogan

 

Counsel for  3^rd opposite party                 : M/s.V.V.Giridhar,

Counsel for  1^st and 2^nd opposite party     : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,     : PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to replace the defective Refrigerator model no.(Refrigerator Model No.RT34M3743BS/HL) or refund a sum of Rs.33,000/- with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation for the mental agony, monitory loss and hardship undergone and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is one of the authorized dealer of Samsung products and is doing the business of selling consumer durables to the public. The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service provider for the Samsung products.  The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of Samsung products.  The complainant stated that she purchased one Samsung Double Door Refrigerator .(Refrigerator Model No.RT34M3743BS/HL) from the 1^st opposite party on 07.12.2017 on payment of Rs.33,300/- with warranty. The complainant further stated that on 10.12.2017 for installation one Baskar babu came from 2^nd opposite party. The said person unpacked the fridge packing seal and found the safety corks covered the fridge broken and the corks placed on front and back side were also missing.  He further found the safety seal pasted on the back side of the fridge were also torned. The complainant further stated asked the person details but, he has not answered properly.  The complainant preferred a complaint before the F3 Nungambakkam police station against the person and the Police advised to the complainant to take action against the opposite parties before the consumer courts. The opposite party knowingly sold the above said defective refrigerator to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has caused mental agony and loss.  The opposite parties by selling defective fridge to the complainant have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  The opposite parties are liable to pay replace or refund a sum of Rs.33,300/- with compensation.  

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY 3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF.

          The opposite party deny each and every averment made by the complainant is false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 3^rd opposite party stated that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator from 1^st opposite party after checking the product and the dealer had delivered the refrigerator to the complainant in a good condition and informed the complainant that service engineer would be coming to the residence of the complainant for installation and demonstration of the refrigerator. The 3^rd opposite party denied the averment by the complainant that  the time of delivery itself the refrigerator was damaged.  The 3^rd opposite party stated that the service engineer had attend the installation process and had gone to the residence of the complainant for installation and demonstration of the refrigerator, due to the over sight the service engineer had failed to carry his ID proof and therefore the complainant did not allow the service engineer to attend the installation process and they have gone to the extent of giving police complaint against the service engineer who was also taken the police station enquiry. In the police station the complainant along with her family members had threatened the service engineer with assistance of the police and had obtained the letter as if there was a damage in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party further stated that the refrigerator purchased ad delivered by the complainant was in good condition and absolutely there was no damage to the refrigerator purchased by the complainant. The 3^rd opposite party stated that with regard to the alleged letter given by the service technician admitting the damage, in this regard the complainant and his family had forced the technician to give such a letter under a coercion in the police station and on perusal of the said letter would clearly show that only name of the technician is mentioned their and no signature of the technician is found in the said letter.  Therefore the said letter alleged to have been issued by the technician as no evidential value. The 3^rd opposite party submitted that there was no fault in the refrigerator, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service on the part opposite parties 1 to 3 as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and also documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. The 3^rd opposite party have filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were set exparte.

4. POINT NO :1

                   The complainant purchased one Samsung double door refrigerator from the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the samusung product on 07.12.2017 on payment of Rs.33,300/-.  The 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service provided on the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer according to the complainant that on 10.12.2017 one person by name Baskar babu came from 2^nd opposite party for installation and demo purpose who found that the safety corks covering the fridge was broken and it was also missing on front and back side and the safety seal pasted on the back side of the fridge were also torned and when the complaint questioned that person he did not reply properly and not having ID card of the 2^nd opposite party and hence a police complaint was lodged against that person and the police advised to approach the consumer commission and therefore the complainant contended that she was put to mental agony since the opposite parties have sold a defective refrigerator and therefore prayed to replace the same and refund the money with compensation by alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

          5. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties remained exparte.  It was contended by the 3^rd opposite party that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator from the 1^st opposite party after checking the product and delivery was taken in a good condition and when the service engineer had gone to the residence of the complainant for installation and demonstration.  The complainant did not allow the service engineer to attend the process for want of ID proof and went to the extent of giving police complaint and he was taken to police station for enquiry where letter was obtained from him by using coercion wherein the technician was forced to admit the damage and contended that the said letter is not valid and has no evidencery value and further stated there was no fall in the refrigerator and there is no evidence regarding any defect in the same and denied the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          6. Ex.A1 is the tax invoice in the name of complainant 07.12.2017 by which she has purchased a Samsung refrigerator from 1^st opposite party for Rs.33,300/- it is found from Ex.A2 customer service record card that one baskar babu name is shown as engineer and it is further found that there was damaged to the packing and there was damaged in the back side  packaged and sticker.  The said Baskar babu has also singed in the Ex.A2.  In the alleged letter given by the service engineer which is marked as Ex.A3 there is no date and the signature of Baskar babu who is technician also differ from his signature is found in Ex.A2.  Moreover, in Ex.A3 it was stated that when the packing was opened it was found that the thermakol was damaged and sticker in the backside was torned and it is further stated that the customer is denying the performance of demo.  Ever as per the contents of Ex.A3 there is no damage or defect to the said fridge reported by the said Baskar Babu.  Further this Ex.A3 was written and obtained at police station and hence it has no evidencery value.  Ex.A5 to A11 are mail communication between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party.  It is found from Ex.A5 the 3^rd opposite party that there was no damage in the refrigerator while delivering.  Mere damage in the thermakol in package and torning of sticker in the backside of the fridge alone will not prove that the fridge itself is a defective one.  The complainant not even allowed the technician to install and show demo to findout whether the fridge is in good condition or not. The complainant has not any photograph regarding the torning of the sticker and also damaged in the thermakol and packaging of the fridge. The complaint itself is silent about the nature of defect or damage to the alleged fridge under such circumstances the complainant failed to prove independently the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

7. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to the relief of replacement of fridge or refund of money and compensation for mental agony as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by usin the open Commission on this the 06^thday of September 2022.

 

MEMBER – II                                                                        PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	07.12.2017	Tax invoice.
Ex.A2		Customer service record card
Ex.A3		Letter given by service engineer.
Ex.A4	11.12.2017	Complainant letter to chief minister cell.
Ex.A5	21.12.2017	Mail received from 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A6	05.01.2018	Complaint details.
Ex.A7	14.01.2018	Mail received from 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A8	02.02.2018	Mail received from Jago Grahak jago
Ex.A9	02.02.2018	Mail sent to 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A10	03.02.2018	Mail received from 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A11	05.02.2018	Mail received from Consumer Association of India.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                                -NIL-

MEMBER – II                                                                      PRESIDENT