IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 20^th day of August 2022

Filed on: 20.05.2016

PRESENT:

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri.V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member

C.C.No.288/2016

Complainant :

Toji Thomas, S/o.Thomas, Ooroth House, Erumelikara,
Kumarapuram P.O., Pin-683 565

(By Adv.Baby Antony, Vadakumchery, Kizhakkambalam P.O., Pin-683 562)

Vs.

Opposite parties :

1) M/s.Reliance Retail Ltd., represented by its Manager Br. Edapally, 2^nd Floor, Oberon Mall, NH 47 Bypass, Edapally, Cochin, Pin-682 024.

(OP.1 rep. by Adv.Karthik Bhavadasan, ‘Sreenilayam’, Manakkeparambil Lane, Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi-682 017)

2) M/s.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., represented by the Senior Executive, Customer Experience Br.Kadavanthra, 2^nd Floor Aryabhangi, S A Road, Elamkulam, Cochin, Cochin-682 020

(OP.2 rep. by Adv.K.S.Arundas, KHCAA Chamber No.450, Near High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)

O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant states that he had purchased a Samsung LED television (UA 32FB 4003RM XL) bearing No.#OA3R3ZNG 503624W) from the 1^st opposite party on 13.07.2015 on payment of Rs.27,150/- which was having warranty of one year and there was an extended additional warranty for another 2 years. After 2 days of its purchase, the opposite party installed the LED TV in the house of the complainant. The complainant states that he was very careful to switch off the TV and remove the cable connection from it at the time of lightening. The complainant further states that on 22.12.2015 father of the complainant heard a sound from the TV and observed that the TV is no working when switched on the plug of the TV. The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party to rectify the defect of the TV and as per their advice the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party on the same day in its toll free number. The service executive of the 2^nd opposite party inspected the TV on 24.12.2015 and informed the complainant that there was a small lizard found dead inside the power supply board and by that reason for the non functioning of the TV. On 27.12.2015 another technician deputed by the 2^nd opposite party inspected the TV and informed the complainant that complaint of the TV was due to the presence of small black ants inside the TV due to the improper cleaning of the TV. Further, when the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party, it was informed that the complainant should pay an amount of Rs.13,652/- towards the expenses for the new panel board. The demand for the cost of the panel board was intimated by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant by way of e-mail dated 14.01.2016. In response to this, the complainant sent his reply on 15.12.2015 stated that the damage to the LED TV was caused not by any act of the complainant but by the mistake committed from the side of the service executives who had attended the repair work. The complainant stated that there was serious deficiency of service and negligence from the part of the 2^nd opposite party by not rectifying the defects occurred in TV of the complainant and therefore the complainant had approached this Commission. It is also stated that it was the duty of the opposite party to rectify the defects of the Television in their risk and expenses and therefore the complainant sought for issuing direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.27,150/- being the cost of the TV and also for an amount of Rs.15,000/- being compensation for the mental agony and hardships sustained by the complainant and other reliefs.

2) Upon notice from the Commission the opposite parties 1 and 2 appears before the Commission and 1^st opposite party filed their version.

3) Version of the 1^st opposite party

In their version the 1^st opposite party stated that they are only the retail seller of various products manufactured by genuine manufactures, with proper authentication. The 1^st opposite party is only a reseller and they do not keep any product or material for sale, which are unfit for use. The opposite party further submits that the complainant had purchased the Samsung LED UA 32 FB on 13.07.2015 on payment of Rs.27,150/- from the 1^st opposite party outlet Oberon Mall, Edappally. One year warranty was also provided to the complainant by the opposite party. On 22.12.2015 the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the defects of the TV the 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to contact the 2^nd opposite party for this purpose, because they are the manufacturers of Samsung. Accordingly, on 27.12.2015 an executive of the 2^nd opposite party it was noticed that power supply of the TV was damaged and another technician deputed by the 2^nd opposite party inspected and confirmed the deformity. The opposite party in their version stated that during the manufacturing warranty, the 1^st opposite party could not touch the product as the brand took the responsibility against any of its manufacturing defects. Further as regards to the allegations raised by the complainant that an executives of the opposite party had demanded an amount of Rs.13,652/- from the complainant, the complainant had failed to produce any substantiating proofs like job sheet or other material facts against the demand of the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party also stated that it is bounded duty reserved only to the 2^nd opposite party to rectify any manufacturing defects during the warranty period. It is also stated that the complainant had not co-operated with the 1^st opposite party on all occasions and also as a retailer the 1^st opposite party merely selling the products manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party have no responsibility and is unnecessary party in this case.

4) Evidences

Eventhough the 2^nd opposite party appeared before the Commission they do not filed their version and no evidences is adduced from their side. The complainant was examined in box. The complainant had produced Exbt.A1 to A7 which was marked and also deposition of the complainant was recorded.

5) Following are the main points examined in this case.

(i) Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the complainant?

(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible to get the compensation from the side of the opposite parties?

(iii) costs of the proceedings if any?

6) Point No. (i)

We have examined the allegations framed by the complainant with respect to the evidences produced by the complainant and also by thoroughly checking the other aspects of the case with substantial evidences and following are the inferences into which we have reached.

The complainant had purchased Samsung LED Television from the 1^st opposite party on 13.07.2015 and had paid an amount of Rs.27,150/- towards the cost of the TV which is evident from Exbt.A1 retail invoice produced by the complainant. From Exbt.A2 it can be seen that one year warranty was provided to the TV by the opposite party. In Exbt.A3 it can be seen that an amount of Rs.13652.02 has been asked for by the opposite party for the repair work of the TV. Exbt.A4 goes to show that the complainant had sent a letter to the opposite party requesting for rectifying the damages along with other reliefs. Exbt.A5 document goes to show that the complainant had also sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party. Exbt.A6 and A7 are the postal receipts in which it can be seen that the complainant had sent postal articles to the opposite party.

On verification of documents, evidences and other records we are of the opinion that eventhough the opposite party had sent their executives for rectification of TV purchased by the complainant from the opposite party the defects of the TV had not been rectified by them so far. Hence the complainant is sustained deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. In these circumstances, we do hereby issue the following orders.

ORDER

1) The opposite parties shall rectify the defects of the Television purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties free of cost.

2) The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant being compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant.

3) An amount of Rs.5000/- shall pay to the complainant being the costs of the proceedings.

4) The liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several.

The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 20^th day of August 2022

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Exhibits

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Nil

dictated by Ramachandran member on 04/04/2022

1^st print on - 05/04/2022

2^nd print on - 07/04/2022

am