Order-11.
Date-02/07/2015. .
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a Samsung LED TV set UA23H4003#HO1A3ZNF629479 from the OP1 at a cost of Rs.13,500/- vide invoice no.BILL-00392 Dated 06-08-2014 with a warranty of one year from the date of purchase of TV Set and OP runs a business of electronic goods having showroom on above address and the manufacturer of the product and service provider is OP2 that is M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the TV set developed defect on and around 1st week of November, 2014 and on 14-11-2014 complainant talk over phone with the OP1 informing the fact of the defect of the said set but none from the OP’s office came and inspected the TV set though complainant repeatedly reminded on 18-11-2014 to OP1 and on 19-11-2014 the representative of OP2 visited the complainant’s house, inspected the TV set and handed over the estimate for repairing of the TV set at a cost of Rs.7,105/- in the name of Ram Vikash despite the fact that TV set developed defect within warranty period and fact remains warranty period was from 06-08-2014 to 05-08-2015. Most interesting factor is that even after repeated reminders and also after inspection of the same by the representatives of the OP they demanded estimated repairing charge though there was warranty during that period and no doubt such sort of act on the part of the OP is tantamounts to unfair trade practice and at the same time they have not acted as per warranty clause.
Complainant drew the matter under attention to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Kolkata for redressal and Assistant Director of CA&FBP made his best effort to solve the dispute but mediation failed and complainant was advised by the Assistant Director of the CA&FBP to file a complaint before this Forum for redressal of her grievances and under the above circumstances, complainant on the ground of deficient and negligent manner of service and for adopting unfair trade practice filed this complaint for redressal.
Notices of this complaint was duly service upon the OPs which is evident from the internet postal report and it is found that notices were served on 11-04-2015 to Swar Sangam (Central), OP1 and also to Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., OP2, but OP2 did not appear to contest. However, OP1 the seller of the item appeared, took time for filing written version but ultimately on 24-04-2015 they submitted in writing that as because the product has its warranty coverage for one year then the matter ought to have been taken with the manufacturer and warranty was given by the manufacturer for which as seller he has nothing to do and moreover he has submitted that in fact, the said product was purchased by one Subhabrata Dey of 39/23A, Gopal Nagar Road, Kolkata – 700 027 but no complaint was registered by the complainant but same complaint was registered by Ram Vikash Kumar from 56/16, Picnic Garden Road, Kolkata – 700 039 for the said set but he is not the original owner of the said product as he has no prove for purchasing the same from OP1 in his name it appears that the present complainant purchased the said set from Subharata Dey and it is a reason for which the present complaint is not maintainable and for which it should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On critical appreciation of the entire materials on record including the complainant and also the written version of the OP it appears that the allegation of the OP that the complaint was lodged by one Ram Vikash Kumar in respect of the said set but anyhow it is found that the complaint is filed by the original purchaser Subhabrata Dey and he is the complainant in this case for which the defence as taken by the OP is not at all believable or reliable and question of resulting the same to Ram Vikash Kumar or to Subhabrata Dey is also not proved by any cogent document by the OP1 the seller of the item. So, under any circumstances, such sort of plea or defence as taken by OP1 is proved a false defence but admitted position is that Subhabrata Dey purchased the said item. From the tax invoice cum challan it is also proved that item was purchased by the complainant Subhabrata Dey and it is purchased on payment of Rs.13,500/- and it was sold on 06-08-2014.
Anyhow, complainant has claimed that there was defect in the set what he found on the first week of November, 2014 and no doubt the set was giving good service from 09-11-2014 to 14-11-2014 but complainant has submitted that he found some defect after 14-11-2014 and informed the OPs but none from OP’s office investigate the TV set so, complainant reminded them on two occasions. Thereafter, representative of the OP2 visited the complainant’s house and inspected the TV set and handed over the estimated repairing cost at the cost of Rs.7,105/- but what we have gathered from the tax invoice cum challan warranty provided by manufacturer as per standard warranty terms no doubt the warranty was for one year. So, it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that the warranty of said item was from 06-08-014 to 05-08-2015 and defect was detected by the complainant on 14-11-2014 what was reported. For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that during warranty period the said set faced any problem then it was/is impossible for the complainant to use the TV set in that case complainant must have to report it in writing to the manufacturer or the service centre but anyhow complainant has not produced any document to show that he reported the matter to the service centre and service centre received the same and issued such job sheet or work order but no such paper has been produced by the complainant however complainant has produced estimated letter to repair the product issued by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. dated 19-11-2014 and in the said estimated letter to repair the product it is signed by Sudipta Ghosh for Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and their claim is Rs.7,105/- as repairing estimate and considering that fact it is proved that the said set suffered from defects for which necessary repairing was required and on behalf of the manufacturer company his representative visited the complainant’s house and inspected the same and submitted estimated letter to repair but under any circumstances as per warranty clause the manufacturer cannot claim any charge in respect of any repairing of the item when warranty was valid for one year and during the warranty period such defect was detected then it was the legal and bounden duty on the part of the OP manufacturer to repair it and to make it fit for service and to use by the complainant as customer but without adopting proper form and without complying the warranty clause they claimed service charge, repairing charge etc. that is a total amount of Rs.7,105/- from the complainant which is completely illegal and no doubt such sort of claim on the part of the OP manufacturing company for repairing the said item is no doubt an attempt to grab huge money from the customer even after existence of warranty period for which OP’s act tantamounts to unfair trade practice at the same time the OP2, the manufacturer has not discharged his corporate/ social responsibility to the consumer as per warranty clause which is no doubt a negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the OP.
So, considering the entire material, facts and also the discussions as made above we are inclined to hold that complainant has been able to prove the allegation of adopting unfair trade practice by OP2 and not for discharging the service as per warranty clause to the complainant in all respect the OP2 the manufacturer Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. is found negligent and at the same time they are deficient in discharging their service and also has not complied the terms and conditions of the warranty clause when the said set has or had its validity of warrant when the defect was detected by the OP2 on 19-11-2014 and fact remains on 19-11-2014 the age of the TV set was only 3 months and some days and for which OP2 is legally bound to repair the same without charging any amount from the complainant when valid warranty is there and by not repairing the same within the warranty period no doubt they have harassed the complainant in so many manners for which complainant suffers and at the same time complainant failed to enjoy daily show or etc. by using that TV and fact remains TV is purchased for enjoying for daily but he failed to enjoy it till now and since 14-11-2014 for which the OP manufacturer company is legally bound to pay compensation also and at the same time there was a scope before OP manufacturer to face the allegation made against the OP manufacturer before the CA&FBP but OP2 did not think for a moment that it is their moral duty to appear before the CA&FBP and to submit their version or defence but in lieu of that they did not appear and did not think for a moment that the notice has been sent by the CA&FBP who have their authority in the eye of law to decide such complaint and considering that fact also we are convinced to hold that complainant has filed this complaint showing negative attitude of the OP before the CA&FBP for which the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost also as prayed for.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed ex parte against OP2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
OP2 is hereby directed to pick up the said TV set of the complainant from the house of the complainant at their own cost and repair it without any charges and make it free from all defects and replace it to the house of the complainant so that the complainant can enjoy the service of the TV without any further harassment and it must be complied by the OP2 within one month from the date of this order failing which OP shall have to refund the entire purchase price amount of Rs.13,500/- to the complainant and also compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing mental pain and agony and also for harassment caused to the complainant.
If OP2 fails to comply any part of the order in that case OP shall have to pay penal interest at the rateRs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that OP2 is unwilling to comply the order in that case oP shall be prosecuted u/s.27/25 of the C.P. Act for which he shall be imposed further penalty and fine.
