Date of Filing : 18.10.2022
Date of Disposal : 12.06.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.01/2023
THIS MONDAY, THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2023
Mr.P.Chandrababu Naidu,
S/o.Late P.Mannatchi Naidu,
No.104, Naidu Street,
Vellathukottai Village,
Uthukottai Taluk,Thiruvallur District,
Tamil Nadu 602 023. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager, Saravana Store,
No.15, M.T.H.Road, Padi, Chennai 600 050.
2.The Managing Director,
M/s.Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,
20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,
Golf Course Road, Sector -43, DLF PH-V,
Gurgaon, Haryana 122 202.
3.The Managing Director,
M/s.Savex Technologies Private Limited,
Plot No.14, Yudhisther Marg,
Near Deer Park C-Scheme,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302 001. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.P.Dileepkumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : M/s.P.Suresh, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st & 3rd opposite parties : Exparte.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 30.05.2023 in the presence of M/s.P.Dileepkumar counsel for the complainant and M/s.P.Suresh counsel for the 2nd oppostie party and opposite parties 1 & 3 were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective television along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the defective television with a new one along with three years extended warranty from the date of replacement or to reimburse the sum of Rs.38,204/- towards the cost of the television with 24% interest from the date of purchase and to refund a sum of Rs.9,420/- towards the purchase of extended warranty with 24% interest from the date of purchase and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased a brand new Samsung 40 inch LED Television model UA40K5000ARLXL from 1st opposite party Branch showroom at M/s.Saravana Stores, Padi Chennai on 22.07.2017 for Rs.38,204/- vide invoice No.F9C1AD and bill No.220717/31875. The 1st opposite party had informed orally that the television has one year warranty from the date of invoice. After normal usage of television, a line started to appear in the display of the television and hence the complainant raised a complaint with the customer care of the 2nd opposite party on 06.11.2017 and they had given a query number 1143268536 against the complaint. An authorized Service Engineer of 2nd opposite party visited the complainant’s home on 08.11.2017 and informed that the whole LED panel of the television must be replaced. The Service Engineer of 2nd opposite party had raised a service request for replacement of the default LED panel and gave the service request number 4249016566 to the complainant. The defect caused in LED panel within 100 days from the date of purchase was due to the manufacturing defect. The complainant tried to escalate the issue to the higher officer of the 2nd opposite party and requested for replacement of the manufacturing defect television with a new television. Mr.Deva Kumar, Senior Executive, Customer Experience sent an email to the complainant’s younger son email ID dated 16.11.2017 rejecting the request for replacement of the manufacturing defect television with a new television and extending the one year warranty period from the date of purchase to an additional three months in total one year and three months warranty (which ends on 21.10.2018) from the date of purchase of the television. The Service Engineer of the 2nd opposite party had visited the complainant’s home on 16.11.2017 and replaced the defective LED panel with another panel. The same display issue had started again in the television within 10 months from the said replacement of the LED panel and hence the complainant raised a complaint again with complaint No.4267884675 on 27.08.2018. When the complainant once again requested for the replacement of the manufacturing defect television with a new television to the customer care of the 2nd opposite party as the same defect occurred again as the product was in warranty, Mr.Velan Arasu from the customer care of the 2nd opposite party had informed that the request was rejected and they could only render the service upto 21.10.2018 and sent a Service Engineer to replace the LED panel again and the Service Engineer had replaced the LED panel once again on 05.09.2018. Mr.Velan Arasu had also informed that the product warranty was ending on 21.10.2018 and also the replaced LED panel warranty (Part warranty) would exist for the remaining period of 90 days from the date of installation i.e., on 05.09.2018. With no other option left for him, the complainant had accepted for the replacement of the LED panel second time. Even after the replacement of the said LED panel, the defect existed. On 05.10.2018 the complainant had purchased the three years extended warranty in accordance with the advice of customer care of the 2nd opposite party through online using the complainant’s younger son Bank Account for Rs.9,420/-. The complainant had received a television extended warranty certificate number INMA814977A, Pick Number P-UT-3NXX460 along with the tax invoice No.JPRR1181906886 dated 08.10.2018 from the 3rd opposite party email to the complainant’s younger son email ID on 09.10.2018. As per request made by the 3rd opposite party in the email dated 09.10.2018 the complainant sent an email to the 2nd opposite party from his younger son email id along with newly received extended warranty certificate number, Pack number, television purchased invoice and extended warranty purchased invoice. But the complainant received an email from the 2nd opposite party on 10.10.2018 rejecting to provide the three years extended warranty as it was not under warranty. Mr.Velan Arasu has abruptly refused by saying that extended warranty will not be applicable to the complainant’s television as the warranty was expired on 21.07.2018 as calculated from the date of purchase of invoice and three months extension of warranty given to the complainant was only to satisfy the customer. Mr.Velan Arasu also denied replying on the possibility of refund of his money paid for three years extended warranty service and denied applying the three years extended warranty to the complainant’s television. On 12.10.2018 complainant sent an email to the 2nd opposite party from his younger son email ID explaining the facts of the said faulty product, requested to take back the faulty product and refund the money paid by both television purchased and three years extended warranty purchased. On 16.10.2018 the complainant received an email from the 2nd opposite party to provide the necessary documents of the extended warranty. For which the complainant sent an email enclosing the necessary documents related to the three years extended warranty and also requested for replacement of television or to refund of amount of television and three years extended warranty purchased. On 18.10.2018 Mr.Ganesh Palani, called to the complainant and informed that the refund of the amount paid towards the three years extended warranty will be processed but denied replying on the replacement of the defective television even though it was still under warranty. On 01.11.2018 a Service Engineer of the 2nd opposite party had visited to the complainant’s home to check the defect in the television. The complainant received a call from customer care of the 2nd opposite party that the LED panel cost was Rs.17,250/- and asked him to confirm the order. The complainant received an email from Ms.Nevida (Senior Executive-Consumer Experience) of 2nd opposite party on 05.11.2018 stating that the product was out of warranty and denied refunding the amount paid towards the purchase of three years extended warranty. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to replace the said defective television with a new one along with three years extended warranty from the date of replacement or to reimburse the sum of Rs.38,204/- towards cost of the television with 24% interest from the date of purchase and to refund a sum of Rs.9,420/- towards the purchase of extended warranty with 24% interest from the date of purchase and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-
The complainant had purchased a Samsung 40 inches LED television from the 1st opposite party and the warranty covered for the said product was one year from the date of purchase. When the complainant complained that a line started to appear in the display of the television, immediately the 2nd opposite party’s authorized service centre person visited the residence of the complainant and LED panel of the television was replaced. In fact the television was working properly till the complainant approached on 06.11.2017. On 06.11.2017 the 2nd opposite party sent a mail rejecting the request for replacement of the television instead to satisfy the customer extended the warranty for an additional three months i.e., one year and three months which ends on 21.10.2018. However, the Service Engineer visited and replaced the defective panel. Complainant again on 27.08.2018 complained that the display issue started again in the television within 10 months and the same was not entertained for the reason that warranty covers only to repair free of cost the product and the 2nd opposite party never assured that the product would be replaced which was specifically stated in the terms and conditions of the warranty. In fact the complainant had accepted for the replacement of the LED panel after the 2nd opposite party submitted that replacement is not possible as per the terms of the warranty for the product sold. It was true that the complainant applied for three years of extended warranty and paid Rs.9,420/-. On 07.11.2018 complainant received an email from Senior Executive of the 2nd opposite party and sent a mail accepting the offer of the 2nd opposite party for replacement of the existing television with a new alternate television however, the complainant was adamant for refund of three years extended warranty amount. Correspondences between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party would establish that the grievances of the complainant was taken seriously and at the first instance the warranty was extended for one year three months again to satisfy the customer the replacement of the television also agreed. But however, they expressed their inability to refund the amount paid towards extended warranty. It was submitted that it was obvious that the complainant’s approaching and insisting for refund of three years warranty amount not even willing to take alternate television model and was nothing but an abusing the process of law. Seeking Rs.10,00,000/-as compensation for undue hardship and untold mental agony for having purchased television for Rs.38,204/- shows the complainant’s attitude was to get wrongful gain. Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A26. On the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 on their side. Inspite of sufficient notice and opportunities opposite parties 1 & 3 did not appear and hence they were called absent and set exparte on 14.03.2023 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.
Points for consideration:
Whether the alleged act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not replacing the defective Samsung 40 inch LED television and in not refunding the amount received towards extending warranty has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;
Bill issued by the 1st opposite party for the purchase of television dated 22.07.2017 was marked as Ex.A1;
Copy of email received from Mr.Devakumar to the complainant’s younger son email ID dated 16.11.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Account Statement of the complainant’s elder son Bank Account showing proof for debit of Rs.9,420/- towards purchase of extended warranty dated 05.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Copy of email received from 2nd opposite party Sales Team to the complainant’s younger son email id sumanthrao.18@gmail.com dated 05.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;
Copy of email received from 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email ID dated 08.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;
Extended warranty purchased Tax Invoice towards the complainant’s television dated 08.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;
Copy of email received from 3rd opposite party for the receipt of extended warranty certificate along with the Tax Invoice to the complainant’s younger son email ID dated 09.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Copy of email communications between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party on 09.10.2018, 10.10.2018, 12.10.2018, 16.10.2018, 24.10.2018, 25.10.2018, 26.10.2018, 05.11.2018, 07.11.2018, 08.11.2018, 09.11.2018, and on 12.11.2023 were marked as Ex.8 to Ex.A23;
Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 23.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A24;
Acknowledgement of receipt of the legal notice to 1st and 3rd opposite parties was marked as Ex.A25;
Reply by the 2nd opposite party dated 26.12.2018 was marked as Ex.A26;
On the side of 2nd opposite party following documents were filed in proof of their defence;
Warranty card was marked as Ex.B1;
Account Statement was marked as Ex.B2;
Customer Service Record Cards were marked as Ex.B3 to Ex.B5;
Reply legal notice dated 26.12.2018 was marked as Ex.B6;
Estimation confirmation dated 13.02.2023 was marked as Ex.A7;
Both the complainant as well as the 2nd opposite party filed written arguments with endorsement that the same may be treated as oral arguments. Thus on perusing the pleadings and available material evidence produced by both parties this commission decided the complaint on merits.
The crux of the written arguments made by the complainant is that he had purchased a new Samsung 40 inch LED television for a sum of Rs.38,204/- on 22.07.2017. As the TV showed defect in the display the LED panel was replaced after raising issue with the opposite parties. Again the TV showed the same defect and when approached by a complaint on 27.08.2018 the 2nd opposite party rejected the request of the complainant for the replacement of TV and also informed that they can render service only upto 21.10.2018 until the warranty period. Once again with no other option the complainant accepted for replacement of LED panel and the same was done on 04.09.2018. However, even after the same, the problem existed and on advice of the 2nd opposite party’s Service Engineer, complainant applied for extended warranty of three years by paying an amount of Rs.9,420/- but still no warranty was extended citing the reason that as on that date no warranty existed for the product. Thus the opposite parties refused for replacement of the TV which is suffering with inherent manufacturing defect and also refused to refund the amount paid for the extended warranty by the complainant. It is submitted that the act of opposite parties is arbitrary and illegal. The opposite parties did not try to find out the real problem that existed with the product. Hence, the defect existed even after replacement of the LED panel. The extended warranty was applied by the complainant only after getting confirmation by the 2nd opposite party about the eligibility of the complainant. Thus the complainant sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the 2nd opposite party stated that the LED TV purchased by the complainant was covered with warranty period of one year and when the complainant raised the complaint that a line started to appear in the display of the TV, immediately the 2nd opposite party Service Engineer attended the problem and replaced the LED panel. The request for replacement of TV by the complainant was rejected and only to satisfy the customer three months period was given as additional warranty. However, though an amount of Rs.9,420/- was received towards extending additional warranty for three years the same could not be provided as the warranty period had expired for the complainant. The amount received also was unable to be refunded to the complainant. The act of complainant not willing to take an alternate TV model and insisting for refund of the warranty amount of Rs.9,420/- was nothing but abuse of process of Law and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On appreciation of the available materials and pleadings this commission holds that the opposite parties should be held liable for committing deficiency in service for the complainant for the following reasons;
When the defect in the product is repeated even after replacement of the LED panel for more than once it clearly leads to a conclusion that the product was suffering with some inherent manufacturing defect and it is the liability of the opposite parties to replace the product along with warranty. In such scenario no expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect is required.
The defence by the 2nd opposite party that the grievances of the complainant was taken seriously and attended immediately but they are unable to refund the amount received for extended warranty is an unreasonable/frivolous defence when they had supplied a defective product and also had received amount towards offering extended warranty for three years fraudulently enticing the complainant to pay Rs.9,420/- for extended warranty.
Receiving money for extending the warranty and not extending the same citing some irrelevant reasons itselfs amounts to unfair trade practice. Further not refunding the same even after not extending the warranty and citing the reason “inability” is a clear absurdity on the part of the opposite parties.
When it was stated by the 2nd opposite party that they were ready to replace the existing TV with alternate model but the complainant did not accept, no documentary evidence was produced by them to prove that they offered replacement to the complainant.
When the complainant had purchased the product with the fond hope of using it and when could not use the same for more than six years for no fault of him and also made to suffer by approaching the opposite parties to redress his grievance caused by the defective product, the act of opposite parties is nothing but clear cheating.
Thus for the above reasons we could safely hold that the act of opposite parties amounted to clear deficiency in service in selling a defective product and failing to rectify the defect and redress the grievances of the complainant.
Point No.2:-
As we have arrived at a decision that the act of opposite parties amounted to clear deficiency in service making the complainant to suffer mental agony, hardship and monetary loss, we direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with replacement of the TV with warranty of same model or in alternative to refund the amount of TV cost of Rs.38,204/- with 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization which we think would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them
a) To replace a new Samsung 40-inch LED Television Model UA40K50000ARLXL with warranty of same model or in alternative to refund the amount of Rs.38,204/-being the television cost with 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. on 22.07.2017 till realization;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the mental agony, monetary loss and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 12th day of June 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 22.07.2017 Bill issued by the 1st opposite party for the purchase of television. Xerox
Ex.A2 16.11.2017 Copy of email received from Mr.Devakumar Ch (Senior Executive, Customer Experience) to the complainant’s younger son email id(sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) Xerox
Ex.A3 05.10.2018 Account Statement of the complainant’s elder son’s bank account (Karur Vysya Bank) showing proof for debit of Rs.9,420/- towards purchase of extended warranty. Xerox
Ex.A4 05.10.2018 Copy of email received from 2nd opposite party sales team to the complainant’s younger son email id(sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A5 08.10.2018 Copy of email received from 2nd opposite party admin to the complainant’s younger son email id(sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A6 08.10.2018 Extended warranty purchased Tax Invoice towards the complainant’s television. Xerox
Ex.A7 09.10.2018 Copy of email received from 3rd opposite party for the receipt of extended warranty certificate along with the Tax Invoice to the complainant’s younger son email id(sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A8 09.10.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to carepack@samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A9 10.10.2018 Copy of email received from carepack@samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A10 12.10.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to carepack@samsung.com and dava.ch@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A11 16.10.2018 Copy of email received from ganesh.p2@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A12 16.10.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to and ganesh@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A13 24.10.2018 Copy of email received from niveda.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A14 25.10.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to and niveta.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A15 26.10.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to niveta.s@partner.samsung.com and ganesh@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A16 05.11.2018 Copy of email received from niveda.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A17 07.11.2018 Copy of email received from niveda.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A18 08.11.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to and niveta.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A19 09.11.2018 Copy of email received from niveda.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A20 09.11.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to and niveta.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A21 12.11.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to and niveta.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A22 12.11.2018 Copy of email sent from complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com) to and niveta.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A23 12.11.2018 Copy of email received from niveda.s@partner.samsung.com of 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s younger son email id (sumanthrao.18@gamil.com). Xerox
Ex.A24 23.11.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the oppostie parties. Xerox
Ex.A25 ........... Acknowledgement or receipt of the legal notices to 1st and 3rd opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A26 26.12.2018 Reply to legal notice from the 2nd opposite party Xerox
List of document filed by the 2nd opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ............... Warranty card. Xerox
Ex.B2 25.10.2018 Account Statement. Xerox
Ex.B3 08.11.2017 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B4 31.08.2018 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B5 01.11.2018 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B6 26.12.2018 Reply legal notice. Xerox
Ex.B7 13.02.2023 Estimation confirmation. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
