DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 07th day of March, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
Date of filing: 19/04/2018
CC/56/2018
Bhavadasan.N
S/o Navunni
Das Bhavan,Vadakkanchery - Complainant
Palakkad (Dt) Pin 678 683.
(By Adv. K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
1.The Manager,
Uniquare ,Exclusive Samsung Service Centre
No.20,Haritha Nagar,Noorani (PO) - Opposite Parties
Palakkad.
(Adv.Manoj Ambat)
2. M/s Samsung India Pvt Ltd,
Head Office,20 th to 24th Floor,
Two Horizon Centre,Golf Course Road Sector43
DLFPH-v,Gurugram,Haryana,122 202.
3. M/s Samsung India Pvt Ltd,
Head Office,20 th to 24th Floor,
Two Horizon Centre,Golf Course Road Sector43
DLFPH-v,Gurugram,Haryana,122 202.
(Represented by its managing Director/Manager/
Authorised signatory/Principal Officer.)
( For OP 2&3 By Adv. Sameer Babu)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1.Brief facts of the complainant:-
The complainant purchased a Samsung LED TV from ‘Carrefour’ in Oman vide Bill no 9031251 and with model No.UA49KU7350KXZN manufactured by 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.The complainant purchased the TV set believing the advertisement which is said to have an international warranty for the TV throughout the world.
The TV became defective and it was entrusted with the first opposite party Samsung service centre for repair. The first opposite party collected an amount of Rs.8618/- on 31/10/2017 for repair. Subsequently through a letter dated 15/12/2017 they demanded Rs.35,634/- towards replacement of the defective PCB. This was not acceptable to the complainant due to the reason that the subsequent damage reported by the first opposite party, was not the case when it was attended at the first instance. It happened in the workshop of the first opposite party. Hence they are liable to compensate the complainant. The TV is still with the first opposite party and the complainant has not taken it back as the condition of the TV has been worsened and further damaged due to their mishandling at the workshop.
The complainant sent Lawyer notice on 22/12/2017. But they did not settle the genuine claim of the complainant. The demand of the first opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.35,634/- towards the approximate cost for spare parts and repair is not acceptable to the complainant. The first opposite party has not repaired the TV promptly and thus caused further damages to the TV set. The acts and omissions committed by the first opposite party amounts to clear deficiency of service and they cannot be eluded from the responsibility to pay compensation to the complainant. So this complaint is filed,
1) To get the TV repaired free of cost without insisting any amount including cost of spare
parts and labour charges.
2) To get Rs.50,000/- as compensation as the first opposite party has not returned the TV
after repair.
3) To get the cost of this litigation.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. Contention in first opposite party’s version:-
It is true that the TV set was bought from abroad but they denied the averment in the complaint that the TV has an international warranty and it is valid the world over. The TV set was entrusted with the opposite party for repairs. It is false to state that the complainant contacted the international service centre and their representative attended the complaint. The opposite party is the authorized service centre for Samsung India Pvt Ltd and has nothing to do with the international centre. There is no privity of contract between the opposite party and the said international centre.
The TV did not have valid warranty applicable in India and the complainant has to pay the charges for the repairs. It was informed to the complainant and he agreed the same when it was taken for repairs. Further as the TV model was not in sale in India , the parts had to be sourced from abroad. The payment of advance by the complainant itself shows that he accepted the liability to pay for repairs. After the PCB was replaced , the TV was perfectly working. The complainant wanted his pen drive to work in the TV. But as the software was old, it has to be updated and for that it was taken to the service centre. The opposite party denied the contention of the complainant that the PCB and software used were of another model and there was rolling of picture. The picture was working fine when the pen drive was used and the complainant was fully satisfied. Again another complaint was registered by the complainant and this time TV was brought to the service centre, PCB was replaced again but on inspection it was found that there was complaint with LED panel and the complainant has to pay for repairs which was refused by him. They denied the averment in the complaint that the TV was damaged in the workshop when it is given for repairs. The fact is that the complaint had only given the advance for repairs and since the TV was not covered under the warranty, the complainant has to pay the balance amount so that they can import the parts for repairs. But the complainant was not amenable for that and the first opposite party informed the complainant through a letter dated 15/12/2017 that he has to take back the TV if he did not intend to repair it as it was against their policy to keep it for long time.
The TV is not covered by the warranty and hence the complainant has to pay the cost of the repairs. As the complainant was not ready to pay, the opposite party asked him to take back the TV set. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party nor anu Unfair Trade Practice and the complainant is not entitled to the relief claimed and it has to be dismissed with cost.
4. Version of opposite party 2&3
The Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint since the product is purchased from abroad and the opposite parties 2&3 has its registered office at New Delhi and hence the complaint against these opposite parties are to be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The opposite party company serves its customers and provide goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sales service. The complainant approached the serive centre of this opposite party for the service of his LED TV which was purchased from Oman. The complaint was duly registered and on inspection by the service engineers, the PCB was found defective and it was repaired on chargeable basis for the reason that the unit was purchased form abroad and its warranty does not cover free service in another country. The TV was taken back by the complainant with full satisfaction after paying the charges. There after he again approached the service centre with another complaint and on inspection, the panel was found faulty and it was informed to the complaint, that the panel needs to be replaced on chargeable basis. The complainant was not ready to pay the cost of the panel and demanded free replacement which they could not do under the policy of warranty since the product was purchased from abroad.
The Samsung India has no authority to provide free service to the unit which was purchased from abroad. Free service is only applicable to the unit which is manufactured and sold by Samsung within the territory of India. The opposite parties 2& 3 have no role in this case,since they have not manufactured and sold the unit involved in this case. If the customer need any free service as per the warranty, he needs to do the same from the country from where he had purchased it. In this case, the service centre was ready to render better service within the scope of warranty and even now to provide service on cost. There is no manufacturing defect in the TV. These opposite parties have not committed any act of deficiency of service or Unfair Trade Practice. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with cost of these opposite parites.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit Ext A1 to A5 marked. Complainant produced the PCB(Printed Circuit Board) of the TV set which is marked as M01. Opposite party also filed their proof affidavit. Even though they filed 2 documents(power of Attorney and Warranty policy), the documents were not marked from their side. No witness was examined from both sides. Evidence closed and heard both parties. Both parties filed their notes of arguments.
Issues :-
1. Whether there is Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation.
6. We have perused the affidavit and documents produced from both sides. Ext A1 is the invoice for the purchase of TV from Oman issued by ‘Carrefour’. The information provided on the reverse of the invoice did not mention anything about the warranty period and international warranty. The items numbered from 1 to 7 on the reverse of invoice did not provide any information about the repair under warranty if it is found defective in another country. In the absence of necessary documents, we cannot presume that ‘Samsung’ product purchased abroad has an international warranty and the same is repairable free of cost in India.
7. Further the Ínformation on the reverse of exhibit A1 points out that “A.H.H. After sale service office is the sole reference for any claim of refund, Exchange or repair”. So the complainant has to approach their office, if he claims repair under warranty. Complainant has not produced any documents to show that Samsung Service Centre in India are bound to repair the TV purchased in a foreign country free of cost.
8 . It can be seen from the complaint averment that when the TV became defective at the first instance,it was entrusted with opposite party No 1.UNIQARE ,Samsung Service Centre and the complaint,paid an amount of Rs.8618/- as advance. Subsequently through the letter dated 15/12/2017, the opposite party, demanded to pay 35,634/- towards replacement of defective PCB. The complainant has also enumerated the reasons for not accepting this demand made by the first opposite party. As the 6th reason, the complainant had stated that the he gave advance for PCB replacement due to the alleged reason that this TV is not having international warranty. This itself shows that he accepted the contention of the absence of international warranty raised by the opposite parties.
9. The complainant’s contention that the TV became defective when it is in the first opposite party’s custody and it is due to their mishandling is not proved. The complainant had stated that the very definite case of the complainant is that the opposite party have caused damages to the complainant’s TV set by repairing it and substituting the PCB with a substandard product. The complainant produced the PCB before the Commission and it is marked as MO1 . But he had not adduced any evidence or expert report to prove his contention. In the absence of any cogent evidence, we cannot accept the complainant’s contention that it is substandard.’
So the complainant has not produced any document to show that the TV has an international warranty which provide free service under warranty through out the world. Further no evidence is forthcoming to show that the first opposite party made it defective when it was entrusted with them for repairs. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in demanding charge for repairing and replacing the parts. The complainant is not entitled to get the TV repaired free of cost.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 07th day of March 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Xerox copy of the cash bill issued to the complainant from Carrefour
Retail shop,Qaram,Oman dated 31/08/2017.
Ext.A2 - Xerox copy of the cash receipt for the payment of Rs.8618/- as service
charge to opposite party paid by the complaint dated 31/10/2017.
Ext.A3 - Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated
15/12/2017.
Ext.A4 - Xerox copy of the Lawyer notice to the opposite party dated
22/12/2017.
Ext.A5 - Reply sent by opposite party to the counsel of the complainant (original)
dated 04/01/2018.
MO1:- PCB(Printed Circuit Board) ofcomplainant’s TV set.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost:
