BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 342/2012 Filed on 01.10.2012
Dated : 31.07.2013
Complainant:
Saifudeen, S/o Muhammed Ibrahim, Beema Manzil, Cheruveli, Chullimanoor P.O, Nedumangadu-695 591.
(By adv. C.S. Raj Mohan)
Opposite parties:
1. Manager, Samsung India Software Operator, Bagmane Lake View, Block ‘B’ No. 66/1, C.V. Raman Nagar Byrasandra, Bangalore-560 093.
2. Manager, Smart Electronics, T.C 28/986/2, SWARA-46, Plamoottil House, Sreekanteswaram, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-23.
3. Proprietor, Sushara Appliances, Palayam Junction, Nedumangadu-695 541.
This C.C having been heard on 29.07.2013, the Forum on 31.07.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER
Complainant had purchased a Samsung LCD 32D403TV for Rs. 24,500/- from the 3rd opposite party’s shop on 29.08.2011. The said LCD ought to have been placed on the wall, but even after repeated demands the 3rd opposite party was reluctant to send an employee to fix it on the wall. The complainant was forced to place the said T.V on a TV stand and unfortunately it had fallen down resulting in glass panel damage. Complainant immediately informed the said matter to the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party advised him to entrust the said T.V to 2nd opposite party, who is the authorized service agent of Samsung T.V. The technician of the 2nd opposite party, one Mr. Biju visited the complainant’s house and informed that the 2nd opposite party is ready to replace the panel on payment of Rs. 5,000/-. Complainant immediately paid Rs. 5,000/- to the 2nd opposite party and an advance bill was issued by 2nd opposite party. Moreover the original bill was received by the employee of the 2nd opposite party. Complainant on several occasion approached the 2nd opposite party for changing the broken panel as assured by the 2nd opposite party. But till this date 2nd opposite party was reluctant to redress the grievances of complainant and turn down the complaint stating untenable contention. Now it is learned from reliable source that the 1st opposite party stopped the production of the said TV, purchased by the complainant. The said T.V was purchased on 29.08.2011, and within one year the said incident happened and the complaint has every right to get the panel replaced. It is unfair trade practice from the part of the 1st opposite party to stop the production of electronic equipment within warranty period. The act committed by 2nd opposite party amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. After receiving Rs. 5,000/- 2nd opposite party is making unlawful enrichment from the complainant which is illegal and unfair. 3rd opposite party is also liable for selling a product which is not even in market. Act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Opposite parties are liable to redress the grievance of the complainant.
Notice was sent from this Forum to the opposite parties. Though they received notice they never appeared before this Forum nor filed any version or affidavit or present in person before us. So they were set exparte. Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents, which stands unchallenged.
Points raised for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation or cost?
Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant purchased a brand new LCD TV from the 3rd opposite party, who is the dealer of 1st opposite party, who in turn is the manufacturer of the above said television. When the dealer failed to send an employee to fix the LCD on the wall, complainant used the same by putting it on a TV stand. From there it fell down and the glass panel got damaged and the 2nd opposite party who is the service centre of the 1st opposite party, received Rs. 5,000/- for replacing the glass panel, but till now it was not rectified. So this case was initiated claiming relief from the opposite parties. Complainant produced the bill to prove the purchase of the T.V for Rs. 24,500/- marked as Ext. P1 and the receipt given for Rs. 5,000/- by the 2nd opposite party service centre for repairing the glass panel is marked as Ext. P2. An advocate notice was also issued by the complainant before approaching this Forum, copy of which is Ext. P3, for which also opposite parties never replied. These documents and proof affidavit of the complainant was not challenged by the opposite parties. Evading from this scene, without contesting after receiving notice from this Forum, also amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So the complainant’s case stands proved. His grievance has to be redressed. He has every right to get his T.V replaced or for refund of the price given for buying it. Complainant in his complaint states that it is learned from reliable source that the manufacturer, the 1st opposite party stopped the production of the said T.V. This point was also not proved false by the opposite party.
Since there is no allegation of manufacturing defect, 1st opposite party can be exempted, but for the unfair trade practice of the 2nd opposite party, who in turn is the authorized service centre of 1st opposite party, the manufacturer is also equally liable. So 1st opposite party, ie; the manufacturer is also liable for the misconduct of their authorized service centres. Justice will be met only if an order is passed against all the opposite parties. Apart from this joint liability, 2nd opposite party alone is liable to refund Rs. 5,000/- with interest from the date of receiving the money. Here, we order 12% interest also. Had it been with the complainant and deposited the same with a bank, he will be getting interest. Here Rs. 5,000/- is with the 2nd opposite party from 12.04.2012 and he is flourishing with the same. So it is apt to order interest for the same, till the date of realization. Complainant was devoid of pleasure and entertainment for which he purchased the TV. For this mental agony and loss of comfort, we fix Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally ordered to replace the T.V set with a new one, in the alternative refund Rs. 24,500/- within a month of receipt of this order, along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. If refund or replacement is not done within a month, complainant is at liberty to file execution petition. In addition to this, 2nd opposite party alone is directed to refund Rs. 5,000/- with 12% interest from 12.04.2012 till the date of realization. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which execution can be initiated.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of July 2013.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
C.C. No. 342/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of retail invoice dated 29.08.2011 issued by 3rd opposite
party.
P2 - Copy of advance bill dated 12.04.2012 issued by 2nd O.P
P3 - Copy of advocate notice dated 27.08.2012
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
