Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/52/2015

O.A.Mukundan, Rep by A/R.O.A.Varadadesjgan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Customer Caare(Signatory), TVS Electronics Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

O.A.Varadadesigan-com

08 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.03.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  08.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 08^th   DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.52/2015

 

 

O.A.Mukundan,

Rep. by authorized representative

Mr. O.A.Varadadesigan,

18 Krupa  Sankari Street,

Chennai – 33.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Customer Care (Signatory),

TVS Electronics Ltd.,

Tower 1, Bascon Meeru Towers,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 34.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 19.03.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : M/s.V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to estimate the damages to a turn up of Rs.45,000/- for the deficiencies and mental agony caused to him u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant purchased a Samsung Led TV. The Opposite Party liable to extend warranty for a period of a year for local service. Failure to extend the service facility to the Complainant he was put to hardship. The Complainant estimated the damages to a tune of Rs.45,000/- for the deficiencies and mental agony caused to him. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to order compensation with costs.       

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had failed to establish that he is the purchaser of the television, as alleged by him. The invoice did not contain the name of the Complainant therefore having failed to establish that he had purchased the television set, he will not be covered under the definition of the Complainant. The alleged warranty card produced by the Complainant is written in a language which is not understandable and did not contain the seal of the Samsung Electronics Company or the authorized dealer seal. Therefore even as per the warranty card the warranty is valid only when it is completed in full and stamped by Samsung Electronics Company or by its authorized dealer. Therefore no reliance could be placed on the alleged warranty produced by the Complainant even as per the terms and conditions contained therein.  As per the documents produced by the Complaint, the Complainant was residing at Oman whereas the television set was given for service at Chennai. Therefore the Complainant is neither the purchaser nor the end user and therefore the above Complaint is not maintainable. On perusal of the warranty card produced by the Complainant did not disclose none of the required information with regard to the date of purchase and period of warranty was found to be blank and name of the Complainant was written in the said warranty without the proper seal or authorization from Samsung Electronics Company or the authorized dealer, therefore the warranty is not a valid one and created for the purpose of the above case. The Complainant had given the television for service on 02.12.2014 for certain alleged defects and on verification, it was found that Censor PCB to be replaced. Since the warranty is not applicable the Opposite Party had rightly charged a sum of Rs.6,882/- which includes the labour and service charges and for the cost of the spare parts. Without paying the above charges the Complainant had approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands without establishing that he is the purchaser of the television set. Therefore the above Complaint is liable to be dismissed as there was no cause of action to file the above Complaint. The Opposite Party respectfully states that as the Complainant had failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party he is not entitled to any compensation and he is not entitled for any relief and therefore the above Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

4. POINT NO :1 

          The Complainant purchased a Samsung 3D Led TV UA 46 F6 under Ex.A1 at Lu Lu Hypermarket  LLC at Salaiah, Sultanate of Oman on 21.06.2014 on payment of valuable consideration. The said TV was entrusted  with the Opposite Party for service and the  Opposite Party issued Ex.A2 job sheet for replacing the defective part for a sum of Rs.6,882/-. Ex.A3 is the warranty Card for the TV purchased under Ex.A1.

          5. Admittedly the TV was purchased at Sultanate of Oman and the said TV was brought to India and to use at Chennai. The Opposite Party admits that the TV was entrusted for service on 02.12.2014 for certain alleged defect and on verification it was found that the censor PCB to be replaced and since the warranty is not applicable to the above replacement of part, he charged a sum of Rs.6,882/- which includes labour  and service charges and cost of spare parts and the Complainant without paying the charges he had filed this Complaint.

          6. The facts alleged in the Complaint are very vague. We could able to ascertain from the Complaint is that he only wanted an extended warranty for a year. The Complainant himself filed the document to show that he had entrusted the product for service by way of replacement of spare he had not stated the same in the Complaint. How the Complainant is entitled for the extended warranty from the Opposite Party has not been pleaded in the Complaint.  Normally, the warranty is issued by the manufacturer along with the product and the same will be furnished by the dealer at the time of selling the product. However in the case in hand the Complainant purchased the product at Sultanate Oman and there is no pleading that how the Opposite Party service centre is liable to issue extended warranty to the Complainant for the product purchased by him at abroad.   The Complainant has not filed any document to show that he had requested the Opposite Party to issue extended warranty to him. Further the Complainant has not pleaded how the Opposite Party is liable to extend the warranty. Therefore, the Complainant has not established that the Opposite Party is liable to issue extended warranty to him and therefore, it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

7. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08^th day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 21.06.2014                   Purchase Invoice of Samsung Led TV from Lulu

                                                    Hyper Market L.L.C., Muscat ‘9 nan)

 

Ex.A2 dated 02.12.2014                   Service Bill 8027 of TVS Electronics Ltd

                                                    Chennai 34

 

Ex.A3 dated 21.06.2014                   Warranty Card

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …… NIL ……..

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT