Tripura

West Tripura

CC/67/2017

Dr. Sanhita Chowdhury. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Miss. D.saha.

10 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  67  of   2017

Dr. Sanhita Chowdhury,
C/o- Subrata Chowdhury,Vidyasagar Road,
P.O. Jogendranagar, Agartala,
Tripura West- 799004.             .....….…...Complainant.

       VERSUS       

1. The Manager,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
A-25 Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110044,

2. The Manager,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor , Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square,
Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector- 43,
Gurgaon- 122 002.

3. Owner of the Nandan,
Thana Road, Dharmanagar,
North Tripura.

4. M/s Shree Guru Refrigeration,
Swasti Bazar, Ground Floor, Room No. 28,
H.G. B. Road, Agartala,
Tripura West – 799001.             ….........Opposite Parties.
    

 
 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

For the Complainant        : Smt.  Daliya Saha,
                       Advocate.

For the O.P. No.1  2 & 4         : Sri Amritlal Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Sri Abheek Saha,
                      Advocates. 

For the O.P. No.3            : None appeared.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 10.10.2017.

J U D G M E N T
         This case arises on the petition filed by one Dr. Sanhita Chowdhury. She filed this petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Samsung India Electronics and Shree Guru Refrigeration. The case proceeded against the O.P. No.4 exparte as none appeared on behalf of the Shree guru Refrigeration. Petitioner's case in short is that on 29.03.14 she purchased one LED TV manufactured by Samsung. It was purchased from O.P. No.3, owner of 'Nandan'. TV was not functioning from December, 2014 i.e., after 9 months. On her complain one Kajal Sarma visited her house and installed new display panel but it was not functioning. Another display panel set was ordered and installed. But the defect can not be rectified. Petitioner can not watch the TV for 3 months. The TV set had one year warranty coverage. Service person demanded and took Rs.3100/- from the complainant for extension of warranty service. But the customer care told that warranty coverage could not given by the company. Warranty extension receipt of hard copy was not sent. TV totally stopped functioning and she could not watch anything. Customer care service informed the complainant that warranty extension facility can not be provided towards the purchased TV and the amount Rs.31,00/- would be refunded. Petitioner demanded  a new TV set. But it was not provided. Petitioner had to purchase another TV and suffered a lot. She therefore, claimed compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation. 

2.        O.P. No. 1 and 2, Samsung India Electronics submitted Written statement denying the claim. It is stated that there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the TV set. Engineer of the service centre again and again provided service to her defective TV and it was repaired. There was no manufacturing defect in the LED TV. O.P. acted as per terms and conditions of the warranty and there was no deficiency of service by the O.P. company or their officials, agents. 

3.        O.P. No.3, the seller of the TV was not aware about the quality of the TV and filed no W.S.

4.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether the O.P. Samsung India Electronics failed to provide proper service to the petitioner?
        (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the Samsung India Electronics and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?
5.        Petitioner produced cash memo, copy of warranty extension, message for warranty extension, Copy of receipt, Advocate's Notice,copy of  DTDC courier, copy of speed post to Manager, Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. all photocopies. 
6.        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of petitioner Dr. Sanhita Chowdhury.

7.        O.P., Samsung India Electronics also produced statement on affidavit of Mr. Anindya Bose, Authorized representative of Samsung India electronics. Also produced letter addressed to Mrs. Daliya Saha.

On the basis  of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decision:
9.        The fact of purchase of Samsung LED TV is admitted fact. Cash memo and admission made by the seller clearly established that on payment of Rs.36,300/- the Samsung LED TV was purchased by the petitioner. We have gone through the warranty card. Admittedly the warranty was for 1 year. But within 9 months TV set was not functioning properly. The service centre by one message informed that the LED TV was not covered under warranty extension period. TV was purchased on 29.03.14. warranty was for 1 year. But how the service centre come to the findings that warranty expired. For warranty extension petitioner paid Rs.31,00/-. After receiving the amount service centre sent one mail on 17th June, 2015. It was stated that they will return back the money collected for warranty extension of 3 years. Display panel was repaired 5 months back. It was informed that if it is again repaired then there was high chances that it will not function properly. So by the mail Samsung company proposed her to replace the TV with a new one. Customer care informed about such proposal of replacement on June 17th, 2015. The company  informed the petitioner for replacement but the replacement was not done by the company. Again and again they assured the repairing of the display panel. Service engineer tried for repairing but 3 times repair attempt failed. Inspite of that the TV set was not replaced by new one. Petitioner then sent one advocate notice. The company given reply on 11.07.16. Then again the company proposed for repairing the unit free of cost but never agreed for replacement.

10.        From the scrutiny of the documents before us it is found that from December, 2014 to 11.07.16 for about 2 years the set was not repaired. As per terms and conditions of the warranty the TV is to be repaired or replaced if it is found defective and not working within the period of one year. The TV set was not functioning within one year. The attempt for repairing  failed 3 times but the company, O.P. No.1 and 2 failed to replace it by new one. Company representative, Kajal Sarma took Rs.3,100/- from Sanhita Chowdhury for extension of warranty. But warranty was not extended. This is deficiency of service by the company. 

11.        From the evidence on record it is found that the company did not arrange the repairing of the defective LED TV set within the warranty of 2 years and failed to replace it and also did extend the warranty after receiving the fees of Rs.3,100/-. For all this deficiency of service petitioner is entitled to get the replacement of the TV set by a new one and also compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost. Both the points are decided accordingly.

12.        In view of our above findings over the two points we direct the O.Ps No.1 and 2 to replace the Samsung LED TV by taking back the old defective one and also pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.  Direction is to be followed within 2(two) months, if not followed it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.    

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

MT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.