Date of filing:11-11-2013
Date of Disposal: 24-09-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 24th day of September, 2014
C.C.NO.146/2013
Between:
V.Ramudu
S/o V.Venkatesu
D.No.4/1234-A
Ganesh Nagr,
Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Authorized Signatory,
Vasavi Time Vision,
15/614, Opp: Balaji Transport,
Raju Road,
Ananthapuramu – 515 001.
- The Authorized Signatory,
Sri Balaji Techno Services,
Authorized Service Center,
Samsung India Electronics Limited,
D.No.,12-523-28, 1st Cross,
Surya Nagar, Behind Pallavi Towers,
- The Authorized Signatory,
Samsung Customer Services,
Manufacturing Samsung TV Company
-
Square Sector 43, Gul Course Road
Gurgaon – 122 002
Haryana State. … Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the complainant and opposite party No.1 is called absent and set-exparte and Sri S.Surendra Chary, Advocate for the opposite parties 2 & 3 after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.30,500/- towards the cost of TV Samsung 32 LED or replacement of new TV Samsung 32 LED, Rs.5,485/- towards interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.30,500/- from 12-11-2012 to 11-11-2013, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint in total Rs.60,985/- .
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is the permanent resident of Ananthapuramu and he is a retired employee. The 1st opposite party is authorized dealer of Samsung TVs and running in the name and style of Vasavi Time Vision in Ananthapuramu. The 3rd opposite party is manufacturer of Samsung T.V. The complainant has purchased colour TV i.e. Samsung 32 LED from the 1st opposite party on 12-11-2012 for a sum of Rs.30,500/-. The 1st opposite party has issued receipt in his favour and also booklet of Samsung LED TV for warrant of one year from the date of purchase of the T.V. The said TV worked properly for a period of 4 months and after that it is defective and suddenly shut down the picture only hear the sound. Immediately, on 04-01-2013 the complainant brought the said TV for repair to the 1st opposite party. On the advise of the 1st opposite party, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for repair. The 2nd opposite party has taken TV and it was repaired and given to the complainant after 25 days. In this regard, the 2nd opposite party issued work order No.1155-1-13 dt.04-01-2013 and the said TV worked for a period of 3 months after repair and again started giving the same trouble. Then the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 25-03-2013 and the 2nd opposite party repaired the said TV under work order No.1336 dt.25-03-2013 after 10 days. But the said TV is not functioning properly and again it was started giving some trouble in the month of October, 2013. Then the complainant informed to the 3rd opposite party through phone about the defects of the TV and the 3rd opposite party gave complaint No.8428778142 to the complainant and directed him to approach the 2nd opposite party for repair of the TV. But the 2nd opposite party demanded the complainant for Rs.13,500/- for costs of repair and refused to take TV for repair if the complainant failed to pay the said amount. Then the complainant sent a letter on 08-11-2013 to the 3rd opposite party through email about the refusal of the 2nd opposite party to take TV for repair. The 2nd opposite party after receiving the message from the 3rd opposite party people telephoned to the complainant and informed that they did not repair the defects of the TV without paying the above said amount of Rs.13,500/-. Then the complainant argued with the 2nd opposite party about the warranty period of TV, but the 2nd opposite party did not heed the words of the complainant and he gave evasive replies. It clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and there is manufacturing defect of TV and the complainant is entitled for replacement of TV or cost of the TV with interest @ 18% p.a. Hence, prayed this Forum to pass award in his favour and against the opposite parties 1 to 3.
3. The counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 filed counter of 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party stated that the allegations made in the complaint are not specifically admitted. The 3rd opposite party submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts as no ingredients of the Consumer Protection Act are attracted as there is no deficiency of service to initiate the present proceedings and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini. This opposite party submitted that Samsung is one of the leading manufacturers of electronic products including Computer Peripherals and has got a very strong Research and Development base. It is submitted that the products of Samsung are of the highest quality and it will never sell any product, which is defective including manufacturing defects and poor workmanship. The opposite parties 2 & 3 submitted that it is true that the complainant purchased a new Samsung LED TV on 12-11-2012 and the warranty period is one year from the date of purchase. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party on 04-01-2013 with the complaint that the said TV giving trouble and he could hear only audio and no picture is to be seen. The 2nd opposite party accepted the said TV under a work order No.4144640927 dt.04-01-2014 and recorded the nature of the complaint as no picture. Even the condition of the equipment was also recorded as scratches on body. The 2nd opposite party immediately attended on the said TV and replaced the panel as the panel got damaged due to entry of ants into the said TV Set. It was also informed to the complainant about presence of ants inside the TV and the complainant was asked to take proper care of the TV Set. Again after 3 months the complainant brought the TV to the opposite party No.2 with the same problem on 25-03-2013. It clearly shows that again there are scratches on the said TV and after opening the said TV panel it is found that there were ants inside the TV. Though the complainant was asked to take proper care of the TV at the first instance of problem, he failed to do so, which resulted in occurrence of the same problem for a second time. The 2nd opposite party replaced the panel and again advised the complainant to take proper care. The 2nd opposite party has not collected any amount as TV was under warranty period. Though it was responsibility of the complainant to take care of the said TV, the opposite parties are consumer friendly to replace the panel twice within a span of 3 months. However the third instance of occurrence of same problem is a clear indication that the complainant utterly failed to take care of the said TV set. LED TV set is a very sophisticated electronic equipment, which is to be well taken care of. Though the complainant is advised to take proper care, but the complainant never paid attention to the advise of the 2nd opposite party and allowed the ants into the TV Set by not taking proper care. The contention of the complainant that the said LED TV is defective in nature is denied. When the complainant issued personal notice to the 2nd opposite party, he clearly stated that the problem occurred due to presence of ants inside TV Set. The complainant’s contention that the presence of ants inside the TV set is not his wrong and not acceptable as it is his duty to take proper care of the electronic gadgets in his house. Occurring of the problem thrice within 3 to 5 months is a clear indication that he failed to take care and caution to prevent the ants from entering into TV Set. The conditions printed on the back of the warranty card are clearly showing in clause 5, 8 and 11 that proper care should be taken. Clauses are extracted herein and warranty is not applicable in any of the following cases. Clause 5 defects caused by improper use as determined by the authorized service center /company personnel. Clause 8 site (premises where the product is kept) conditions do not confirm to the recommended operations of the machine/unit. Clause 11 defects caused by household pets, rats, cockroaches or any other animals or insects. In this case, the complainant utterly failed to honour this condition, hence it is his failure not defect in goods. The opposite party also stated that the legal notice on 25-12-2013 served by the complainant alleging that the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant on 20-12-2013 along-with technicians and by opening the said TV removed some parts is strongly denied. The technicians visited the house only to solve the problem and they have taken picture of the said TV only for technical purpose. The allegation of the complainant that some parts were removed from the TV set is denied. The opposite party submits that they tried their level best to help the complainant, but the complainant acted negligently and filed this unjust complaint to gain undue benefits from the opposite party. It clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the complainant and the TV set is not defective and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether is there any manufacturing defect in the TV or not?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 to 3?
3. To what relief?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 2 & 3, evidence on affidavits of the 3rd opposite party has been filed and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties 2 & 3.
6. Heard on both sides.
7. POINT NO.1 - It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Samsung 32 LED TV on 12-11-2012 from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.30,500/- under Ex.A1. It is also an admitted fact that the above said LED TV has warranty for a period of one year from the date of purchase under Ex.A2. It is an admitted fact that after purchasing TV, the said TV started giving problem within a period of 3 months as stated by the complainant and the complainant has given the said TV for repair to the 2nd opposite party under work order on 04-01-2013 under Ex.A3. Under Ex.A3 complaints were mentioned that scratches on body and it is within warranty period. It is submitted that the complainant has given LED TV for repair second time with the 2nd opposite party on 25-03-2013. The 2nd opposite party issued work order No.1336 under Ex.A4 and the 2nd opposite party has rectified the defects as stated by the complainant. The complainant stated that again the said TV is not working properly and he has taken TV with the 2nd opposite party but the 2nd opposite party has not allowed him to repair TV and demanded Rs.13,500/- for repair of the said TV. Then the complainant sent a letter under Ex.A5 to the 3rd opposite party on 08-11-2013 when the 2nd opposite party refused to take the TV. The complainant filed Ex.A1 to A5 at the time of filing of the complaint and subsequently filed legal notice dt.25-12-2013, which is marked as Ex.A7 served acknowledgments under Ex.A8 and also photographs along-with C.D. under Ex.A6 after filing of the complaint in I.A.No.92/2014. The opposite parties did not file any documents in support of their case. In Ex.A3 and A4 it clearly shows that warranty is for a period of one year from 12-11-2012 to 12-11-2013 and the services are made by the 2nd opposite party within warranty period. Only the allegation of the opposite parties 2 & 3 that warranty is not applicable to the present case for clauses referred in conditions which are not applicable printed on the back side of warranty card i.e. clauses 5, 8 and 11. The opposite parties relied on Ex.A2 i.e. warranty card filed by the complainant. Except that there is no piece of evidence filed before this Forum to show that cause of damage to the LED TV either in the job cards or in his reply. In Ex.A3 & A4 there is no whisper that the damage was occurred due to the ants. For the first time the opposite parties are stated in their counter that the damage was caused due to insects or ants. It is also an admitted fact that after filing of the complaint the personnel of the opposite parties have visited the house of the complainant and opened the panel of disputed LED TV under Ex.A6. Ex.A6 is photographs 6 in number clearly shows that the personnel of opposite parties opened the panel for repair. The complainant filed the photographs taken from his mobile at the time of visit of the opposite parties personnel issuing legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was served on the opposite parties and the opposite parties except stating that the personnel of opposite parties took photographs only for technical purpose, who did not file any report or observation made before the personnel. The opposite parties have not stated that there are insects in LED TV. It clearly shows that the opposite parties could not establish that there were ants in the LED TV as alleged the cause for damage of the TV Set. The complainant could establish beyond reasonable doubt that LED was found defective and the complaint to the opposite parties within warranty period and not getting rectified from the defects. The contention of the opposite parties that the cause of defect is due to improper maintenance and entry of ants into the TV could not be established by any concrete evidence and hence this Forum observed that there is manufacturing defect on the ground that panel brought for service within 3 to 5 months as stated in the counter of the opposite parties. In para 5 of counter clearly shows the TV get repair 3 times within 3 to 5 months, thus there is manufacturing defect. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
8. POINT NO.2 - The counsel for the complainant argued that when the complainant faced some problem in TV he got repaired from the 2nd opposite party twice on different dates, he approached the 2nd opposite party for repair third time, but the 2nd opposite party refused to repair and demanded Rs.13,500/- for repairs. Then the complainant sent a letter through email to the 3rd opposite party about the refusal of the 2nd opposite party for repair of the LED TV but there is no response from the 3rd opposite party. The documents filed by the complainant clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as they failed to render services though the defects were found within warranty period. Hence the complainant is entitled the claim made in the complaint. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that in previous two occasions when the complainant brought LED TV for repair, the 2nd opposite party advised the complainant to take proper care as the damage was caused only due to the ants and opposite party also stated that as per clause 5, 8 and 11 when the damage was caused due to any insects or ants, the replacement of LED TV does not arise and customer has to take proper care because the LED TV is a sophisticated electronic equipment and the customer has to pay more attention on the TV. Though the 2nd opposite party advised, the complainant has not taken care of the words of the 2nd opposite party and allowed the TV to enter ants. It clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the complainant but not on the part of the opposite parties and there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The documents filed by the complainant clearly show that the damage was effected within warranty period and the same was admitted by the opposite parties in their counter in para 5 that occurring of the same problem thrice within 3 to 5 months is clear indication that there is defect in the LED TV. Arguments of the opposite party counsel that improper maintenance of the TV by the complainant is not considered because nobody spoil the TV on their own hands. Everybody will try their level best to take proper care. The allegation of the opposite parties that the damage was caused due to entry of ants in the said TV is not reliable because the opposite parties have not filed any document to show that the damage was caused due to entry of ants and nowhere it is mentioned whether in job cards or in the counter that how many ants are entered into LED TV and what type of damage the ants were caused is not explained. The opposite parties simply stated that the damage was caused due to entry of antis is not acceptable without any piece of evidence. This Forum also opined that if the opposite parties found insects/ants on their visit i.e. 20-12-2013 and photographs taken by them would have been produced before this Forum. If at all there were insects/ants found the personnel of the opposite parties did not come forward with any report or remarks at their visit except admitting that they have visited the house of the complainant only to solve the problem and they have taken panel of the TV for technical purpose in para 6 of the counter. But nothing stated in the counter that the finding of their visit or report or photograph along-with counter. Act of the opposite parties without informing the Forum to enter into the house of the complainant and made attempt to secure evidence in their support cannot be appreciated in any manner. If the opposite parties version is true as stated that their visit is only to solve the problem, the same could be done in a professional way. The counsel for the complainant stated that after filing of the complaint, the personnel of opposite parties entered into the house of the complainant forcibly and tried to remove the parts in the disputed TV and the complainant has taken photographs with his cell and the complainant also stated that they got issued legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was served to them, but now the opposite parties contended that their visit is only for technical purpose. Though the opposite parties personnel have taken photographs, they have not filed the same before this Forum because there was no ants in the LED TV as alleged by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not come forward how they wanted to solve their problem. Hence the visit of the house of the complainant is not with clear attitude and convincing. By this observation this Forum has come to conclusion that the complainant established and proved his case beyond reasonable doubt that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.
9. POINT NO.3 - In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to replace new LED TV of the same model and if the model is withdrawn to give any model of the same range to the satisfaction of the complainant or to pay a sum of Rs.30,500/- within one month from the date of this order; in default the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.30,500/- from the date of complaint till the date of realization. The complainant is also entitled an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony , an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint. The amounts shall be payable by the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 24th of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original Cash Bill No.1293 dt.12-11-2012 for Rs.30,500/- issued by the
1st opposite Party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 - LED TV User Manual (Warranty card/Safety Notice) issued by the 1st opposite party
to the complainant.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of Work Order dt.04-01-2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of Work Order dt.25-03-2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A5 – Letter dt.08-11-2013 addressed by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A6 – Photographs ( 6 in number) of LED TV alongwith C.D.
Ex.A7 -Office copy of legal notice dt.25-12-203 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A8 – Postal acknowledgments signed by the opposite parties 1 & 2
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
0
