Complaint filed on: 01-01-2016                                                      Disposed on: 09-11-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.01/2016

DATED THIS THE 09^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Smt.Poornima

W/o. T.S.Prakash,

Residing at No.14, KHB Colony,

Mallappa Road, Sira Gate,

Tumakuru city

(By Advocate Sri.S.K.Mallikarjuna)       

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Sri.Raghavendra

Area Service Manager,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, CRN Chambers, No.13, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Kasturba Road,

Bengaluru – 01

2. The Manager,

ABM Incorporation,

Distributor, Off:#42, 6^th Cross, Hosur Main Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru-27

3. The Proprietor,

M/s. Kathayani Enterprises, Krishna Arcade, 2^nd Cross, K.R.Extension, Tumakuru city

4. The Proprietor,

M/s. Deviprasad Home Appliances, Opp: Deviprasad Steel Centre, MG Road, Tumakuru City

 (OP No.1 by Sri.Himanand.D.C. -Advocate)

(OP No.2 and 4 – Exparte)

(OP No.3-Inperson)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint has filed this complainant against the OP No.1 to 4, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 to 4 to pay the cost of repair charges of Rs.22,692.44 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from March 2014 till its realization and to pay Rs.1,00,000=00 towards mental shock and agony along with 18% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization due to deficiency of service, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant has purchased a Samsung LED 40 inch TV set from the 4^th OP for a sum of Rs.52,500=00 under invoice No.1984 dated 28-10-2011. Further the complainant had used the said TV set with care and cautiously as directed by the 4^th OP. However, after some time, the said TV set started to give some problems and hence the complainant had approached the authorized Samsung Service Centre i.e. M/s Mars Digital Service No.1914/934, 3^rd Cross, MG Road, Tumakuru accordingly the complainant had visited the above said centre  and handed over the said TV set for repair.

          The complainant further submitted that, the said service centre got repaired the TV set and issued a bill vide dated 22-03-2014 vide invoice no.33239714012894 and for the same, he charged a sum of Rs.22,692.44 for replacement of spares of LCD Panel LD400BGB, labour charges and other charges. Further the said service centre had given one year warranty for the said spare-part of the TV set.    

          The complainant further submitted that, after repair of the TV set, within 6 months again giving the problem occurred in the TV display. Hence the complainant approached the service center for rectification of the defects, since the same is under warranty. The said service centre is intending to retire from the service of the said Samsung Company and directed to approach the 4^th OP. Hence immediately the complainant contacted the 4^th OP and kept the defective TV set in his custody and assured the complainant to get it repaired immediately after fresh arrangement of service centre.

          The complainant further submitted that, even after lapse of several days, the 4^th OP failed to arrange the service centre. Hence the complainant contacted the OP No.1 and 2 for repair of the said defective TV set, since the same is under warranty.

The complainant further submitted that, the OP No.1 and 2 had informed the complainant to contact the 3^rd OP for the proper service of the defective TV set. Hence the complainant approached the 3^rd OP along with TV set, the 3^rd OP had discloses that the warranty period has been lapsed and the 3^rd OP had expressed that, he can service the said TV set only on payment basis.

The complainant further submitted that, the above TV set was repaired on 22-3-2014 and the complainant had registered the complaint with the 3^rd OP prior to one week of lapse of the warranty period. The 3^rd OP instead of discharging his service work as the said TV set was under warranty period, he showed his negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant informed about the repair prior to one month of said lapse of warranty period. The approach of the complainant was under warranty period. Due to negligent act of the 3^rd OP the complainant was unable to get TV repaired well within the warranty period. Hence, on 26-6-2015 the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OPs and the said notices were duly served on the OPs but the OPs have not complied the same nor repaired the defective TV set. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.   

3. In response to the notice, the OP No.1 and 3 have appeared and filed objection. The OP No.2 and 4 did not appear before the forum, they were called out as absent and they have been placed exparte.

4. In the objection, the 1^st OP submitted that, the company has provided one year conditional warranty to TV purchased by the complainant and the warranty has expired on 27-10-2012 itself. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the actual charges for availing any service as well as for replacement of any parts which is in accordance with the Company Warranty policy.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant got certain repair facility in respect of TV and has paid certain amount towards change of particular part. Hence the complainant’s TV is out of warranty as on 22-3-2014.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has approached the service centre within one year from the date of availing the first service is not true and correct. The complainant has registered the complaint on 11-4-2015 exactly after one year from the date of first service.  The complainant has approached the service centre within one year from the date of availing first service in unbelievable and there is no evidence that the complainant has got one year additional warranty after getting the first repair from the Mars Digital Service.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant is trying to fix false liability against the OPs by making false allegations. The complainant has failed to establish with documentary evidence that the service centre has provided one year extended warranty after completion of first service.  The allegations made in the complaint are bunch of lies created for the purpose of complaint only and nothing else.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has registered the complaint within particular period from the date of availing first service cannot be believed. There is no negligent act from the service centre in attending the call of the customer. It is further submitted that, the product is out of warranty, all the service work as well as replacement of spare parts will be on chargeable basis and the customer has to give their approval to carry on repair work on charge able basis. The complainant cannot expect anything free of cost that too when the product is out of warranty.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, since the product is out of warranty as well as the complainant is not ready to pay the actual charges for availing any service from the authorized service centre. The complainant is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint when the TV set is out of warranty. Further it is the complainant’s obligation to pay certain amount to rectify any malfunction in the TV set.   Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

5. In the objection of 3^rd OP submitted that, as per the Samsung Company norms and warranty conditions, the amount has to be paid for the service because it comes under out of warranty, so the complainant pay has the amount to existing service centre and complainant might receive the bill.

  The 3^rd OP further submitted that, the said TV set displace was very poor condition within six months, and again the complainant approached the Mars Digital Service centre for service, if so it might be a part of negligence from that service center, because the complainant can register a call and clear the issue there itself. More over intending to retire is not a retirement and only the authorized person for attending such a issue in this area. On the other hand, the complainant can register a complaint through Samsung call centre or the complainant might have brought that TV to nearby service centre for service. Instead of that, the complainant kept the TV with the 4^th OP, it might be the neglect of the complainant.

The 3^rd OP further submitted that, the complainant registered the complaint before their sercvie center, prior to one week of lapse of warranty and the complainant has maintained the date as 22-3-2014 which is the previous repair date with mars digital service centre. The complainant unable to provide the service order number which will give as a reference number for a registered complaint, if the complainant registered any complaint between 7-3-2015 to 28-4-2015 it should be handled by Samsung Company authorized persons under Bengaluru or Mysore service centre, because there is no existence of any sercvie centre in Tumakuru location.

The 3^rd OP further submitted that, the commencement date of Kathayani Enterprises in on 28-4-2015 and their service centre started service work from 1-5-2015 only. If complainant registered any complaint at that time it will come under out of warranty only. More over the service centre does not have any powers to convert a out of warranty call to in warranty call, it will be automatically decided at the time of registering the call, based on installation of history and previous complaint history. Hence the 3^rd OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.        

6. In course of enquiry in the complaint, the complainant and OP No.1 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version respectively. The complainant marked the documents at Ex-C1 to C4. The 1^st OP marked the document at Ex-R1. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and posted the case for orders.   

7. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 to 4 as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

8. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the Negative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          9. On perusal of the pleadings and affidavit evidence of both parties, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant had purchased a Samsung LED 40 Inches TV set from the 4^th OP for a sum of Rs.52,500=00 under the Invoice No.1984 dated 28-10-2011.

          10. Admittedly, the above TV set started giving some problem after two and half years from the date of purchase. Hence the complainant had approached the 4^th OP for repair of the above TV set and the 4^th OP has directed the complainant to approach the service centre i.e. M/s. Mars Digital Service, No.1914/934, 3^rd Cross, MG Road, Tumakuru. Accordingly the complainant had given the TV set for repair and service centre had repaired the TV set and charged a sum of Rs.22,692.44 dated 22-3-2014 for replacement of spare-parts, labour cost and other charges.

          11. The complainant further alleged that, the above service centre had given one year warranty towards replaced spare-parts.  The above TV set again started giving problem and was not working properly. Hence the complainant had approached service centre for repair, since the same is under warranty period. The said service center disclosed that they are intending to retire from the service of the said Samsung Company and directed to approach the 4^th OP. After lapse of several days, the 4^th OP failed to arrange the service centre and then the complainant contacted the OP No.1 and 2 for repair. The OP No.1 and 2 had informed the complainant to contact the 3^rd OP for proper repair and the 3^rd OP service centre had failed to replace the spare-parts free of cost as the spare-parts is having warranty. To substantiate his contention, the complainant had produced Tax Invoice receipt dated 22-3-2014 issued by the M/s. Mars Service Center. On careful perusal of the tax invoice issued by the service centre has not mentioned any warranty to the spare-parts.

12. Per-contra, the OPs have submitted that, the above said TV set is having one year warranty has expired on 27-10-2012 itself. On 22-3-2014 the complainant got certain repair and paid amount towards change of spare-part and the TV set is out of warranty as on 22-3-2014. The complainant has approached the service centre within one year from the date of availing the first service is not correct. There is no documentary evidence produced by the complainant, she has got one year additional warranty after getting first service from Mars Digital Sercvie.

13. Further complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that, the OPs have issued warranty card for the spare-parts. If at all taking into the consideration that, the OPs service centre has given any warranty for the above said spare parts for 12 months the complainant should have produced the same. The complainant except making an oral submission, she has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the case that, she has approached the OPs sercvie centre before 21-3-2015 i.e. before 12 months. In the absence of any documentary evidence and the oral submission made by the complainant cannot be considered to have evidentiary value. Hence, based on the above facts and circumstances, we come to conclusion that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly we answer this point in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 9^th day of November 2016).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT