Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/40/2015

S.Suresh S/o. Shivanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.L.Madhusudhana

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 09/04/2015

     DISPOSED ON: 27/09/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 40/2015 DATED:  27th SEPTEMBER 2016

 

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   MEMBER

COMPLAINANT

S. Suresh, S/o Shivanna, Age: 30 Years, Business, R/o Balaji Nilaya, Behind Bapuji College, Anjaneya Layout, Valmikinagar, Challakere Town, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., III Floor, Court House, Lokamanya Tilak Marg, Dobitlav, Mumbai-400002.   2. The Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., (Reliance Fresh Limited), Nazarabad Mohalla, M.G. Road, Indiranagar Extension, Mysore-570010.   3. Santhosh, Sales Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., Nazarabad Mohalla, M.G. Road, Indiranagar Extension, Mysore-570010.   4. Manjula, Cashier and Sales Manager, Reliance Retail Ltd., Nazarabad Mohalla, M.G. Road, Indiranagar Extension, Mysore-570010.   5. Mansoor, Fitter and Serviceman and Agent, Reliance Retail Ltd., R/o BPL Electricals, Horpet Branch, Chitradurga Town, Chitradurga.   (OP No.1 ex-parte, OP No.2 Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate, OP No.3 to 5 ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to replace Samsung 55, Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000 or to return the cost of the same i.e., Rs.1,61,997/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a, Rs.2,25,000/- towards mental agony, cost and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, on 10.02.2015 he purchased Samsung 55, Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000, Technology: 3D + Smart, Sound: 40 W, Connection: HDMI X 4, Convenience: Motion Control Ready, Feature1: Smart Hub, Feature 2: Multi Link Screen for Rs.1,61,997/- from OP No.2 to have entertainment in his house.  The same is having warranty of one year and the OP No.2 assured that, if any defects with the said TV within warranty period they will set-right the same or replace the TV or refund the amount.  As per the direction of OP No.2 to 4, OP No.5 fixed the said TV in the house of complainant in presence of the family members of complainant.  After fixing the same, it was observed that, there was no picture or any sound came from the said TV, only wrinkles were coming.  OP No.5 on watching the same, he told the complainant that the same is defective one and informed to return the TV to OP No.2 and to obtain new TV.  It is further submitted that, as per the directions of OP No.5, complainant contacted OP No.2 over phone and informed about the defects in the said TV and requested to replace the same but, OP No.2 to 4 failed to reply or to repair/replace the same.  On 27.02.2015, complainant issued legal notice through his Advocate to OPs but, the OPs failed to reply the same.  The cause of action arise to file this complaint is on 10.02.2015 i.e., the date of purchase and on 27.02.2015 io.e., the date of issuance of legal notice to the OPs.    But, the OPs failed to give reply to the said notice nor repair/replace the TV, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prayed for allow the complaint.

 

3.     In spite of service of notice, OP No.1 and OP No.3 to 5 remained absent, they were placed ex-parte.  On service of notice OP No.1 appeared before this Forum through Advocate and filed version admitting about the purchase of Samsung 55, Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000, Technology: 3D + Smart, Sound: 40 W, Connection: HDMI X 4, Convenience: Motion Control Ready, Feature1: Smart Hub, Feature 2: Multi Link Screen for Rs.1,61,997/- from OP No.2 for his house entertainment.  It is denied that, they have given one year warranty for the same and if any problem or defects found in the said TV within one year, the same will be repaired or replaced with another TV or repay the amount.  It is further denied that, OP No.2 to 4 have delivered the said TV to the house of complainant and as per the directions of OP No.2 to 4, OP No.5 fixed the same in the house of complainant in presence of his family members.  It is denied that, OP No.5 after giving dish connection, he observed that, there was no picture or any sound from the TV and only wrinkles were coming and on watching the same, he informed the complainant to return the TV to OP No.2 and to obtain new TV as the same was defective material.  It is denied that, complainant contacted OP No.2 to 4 over phone about the defectiveness in the TV and requested to repair or replace the same.  It is denied that, after purchase of the TV, the same was delivered at Challakere by OPs and fixed the same, which was defective and informed the same orally to the OPs but, the OPs have not repaired or replaced.  It is further submitted that, the complainant is not a consumer and the place of purchase of said TV is at Mysore and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  It is further submitted that, with satisfaction of the complainant said TV has been delivered to the complainant at Mysore itself, before he was taking delivery the said TV was free from any defects.  After delivery of the product to the complainant at Mysore itself, the function of the TV was in order and complainant while transferring  the said product in his own vehicle, from Mysore to Challakere, if any damage caused to the said T, OP No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation in any manner as the said product was free from manufacturing defect and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

        4.     Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7. 

5.     On behalf of OP No.2 one Sri.Manjunath. R, the Store Manager examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.  given.   

 

        6.     Arguments heard.

 

7.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complaint proves that, the OP has played unfair trade practice and committed deficiency of service and he is entitled for compensation as stated in his complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

                                        ::REASONS::

 

9.    Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 10.02.2015 complainant purchased Samsung 55, Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000, Technology: 3D + Smart, Sound: 40 W, Connection: HDMI X 4, Convenience: Motion Control Ready, Feature1: Smart Hub, Feature 2: Multi Link Screen for Rs.1,61,997/- from OP No.2 to have entertainment in his house with one year warranty. As per the direction of OP No.2 to 4, OP No.5 fixed the said TV in the house of complainant in presence of the family members of complainant and it was observed that, there was no picture or any sound came from the said TV, only wrinkles were coming.  Complainant contacted OP No.2 over phone and informed about the defects in the said TV and requested to replace the same but, OP No.2 to 4 failed to reply or to repair/replace the same.  On 27.02.2015, complainant issued legal notice to OPs but, the OPs failed to give reply to the said notice nor repair/replace the TV.  Hence, filed this complaint. 

 

10.  In support of his contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like legal notice dated 27.02.2015 marked as Ex.A-1, Bill dated 10.02.2015 marked as Ex.A-2, Postal receipts marked as Ex.A-3, Delivery Note marked as Ex.A-4, Warranty Card marked as Ex.A-5, Unserved Postal cover with acknowledgement sent to OP No.5 marked as Ex.A-6, C.D marked as Ex.A-7 and they are not in dispute. 

 

11.   On the other hand OP No.2 filed version admitting about the purchase of Samsung 55, Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000, Technology: 3D + Smart, Sound: 40 W, Connection: HDMI X 4, Convenience: Motion Control Ready, Feature1: Smart Hub, Feature 2: Multi Link Screen for Rs.1,61,997/- from OP No.2 for his house entertainment.  But it is denied that, they have given one year warranty for the same and if any problem or defects found in the said TV within one year, the same will be repaired or replaced with another TV or repay the amount.  It is argued that, with satisfaction of the complainant said TV has been delivered to the complainant at Mysore itself, before he was taking delivery, the said TV was free from any defects.  After delivery of the product to the complainant at Mysore itself, the function of the TV was in order and complainant while transferring  the said product in his own vehicle, from Mysore to Challakere, the damage has been caused to the said TV,  Therefore, this OP No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation in any manner as the said product was free from manufacturing defect at the time of delivery to the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part. 

 

12.   We have carefully gone through the complaint, version, affidavits and the records submitted by both the parties. It is seen that, the complainant has purchased Samsung 55, Fsd 3^rd Smart LED TV-55h8000, Technology: 3D + Smart, Sound: 40 W, Connection: HDMI X 4, Convenience: Motion Control Ready, Feature1: Smart Hub, Feature 2: Multi Link Screen for Rs.1,61,997/- from OP No.2 for his house entertainment as per Ex.A-2 the bill issued by OP No.2 dated 10.02.2015.  It was delivered to the complainant on 11.02.2015 as per Ex.A-4 delivery note.  In the warranty card i.e., Ex.A-5 it is mentioned that, the warranty for Television is for a period of 12 months.  It is  also mentioned in the warranty card that, in the event of the company offering extended warranty period for any specific product/period, it is the responsibility of purchaser to get the warranty card with the nearest authorized service center of the company, within 2 weeks of purchasing under such an offer, at the purchaser's cost and risk only.  The complainant has purchased the said TV on 10.02.2015 and the same was fiving problems at the first instance i.e., at the time of installation.  The complainant has issued legal notice i.e., Ex.A-1 on 27.02.2015, for which the OPs have not replied.  The complainant has also written a letter to OP No.5, which was returned unserved as per Ex.A-6.  There is no dispute with regard to the purchasing of above said TV by the complainant from OP No.2.  There is no dispute with regard to receiving an amount of Rs.1,61,997/- from the complainant.  It is the main contention of the OP No.2 that, the complainant has received the TV and transport the same at his risk but, OP No.2 never produced any documents to show that, the complainant has taken delivery and transport the same to his house.  In the delivery note, the delivery address is mentioned as, S. Suresh, Balaji Nilaya Behind Bapuji College, Anjaneya Layout, Valmiki Nagar, Challakere, Chitradurga.   It is clear that, the OPs have delivered the TV to the house of the complainant and the same has been installed by OP No.5.  After installation, the TV was not properly working i.e., not shows the picture, sound and it shows only the winkles.  As per the instructions of OP No.5, complainant contacted the dealer and informed about the defects in the said TV but, it went in vain.  Again, complainant issued legal notice through Advocate but, the OP has not sent reply to the said notice nor repaired/replaced the said TV.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly Affirmative to the complainant.

 

13.   Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is directed to repair Samsung 55, Fsd 3rd Smart LED TV-55h8000 within one months.  If fails to repair the same, OP No.2 is directed to replace the New TV within two months from the date of this order.

If OP No.2 fails to do the above said order, OP No.1 to 5 are directed return the entire amount i.e., Rs.1,61,997/-, the cost of TV within three months  along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization.

 The complainant is hereby directed to approach the OP No.2 within one month along with TV.

It is further ordered that, the OP is directed to pay a sum of  Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

 

 

        (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 27/09/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

                                                -Nil-

On behalf of OP No.2 one, Sri. Manjunath. R, Store Manager by filing affidavit evidence taken as DW-1.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 27.02.2015
02	Ex-A-2:-	Bill dated 10.02.2015
03	Ex-A-3:-	Postal receipts
04	Ex-A-4:-	Delivery Note
05	Ex-A-5:-	Warranty Card
06	Ex-A-6:-	Unserved Postal cover with acknowledgement sent to OP No.5
07	Ex.A-7:-	C.D

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

Rhr.