DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 22^th day of June, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 28/10/2020 

CC/136/2020

Vinod.V.P

    S/o Viswanathan

    Vallikkattu Parambil (house)

Anakkara (Post), Palakkad – 679 551                       -         Complainant                                            

(By Adv. T.Mahesh)                       

                                                           V/s

1. The Manager

    M/s Nandhilath G-Mart, Pattambi

    Palakkad – 679 303

    (By Adv. G.Jayachandran)

2. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

    6^th Floor, DLF Centre

    Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001

    (By Adv. M.Sameer Babu)

3. The Manager

    Samsung Service Centre

    Pattambi, Palakkad – 679 303                                 -         Opposite parties

(By Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      Complainant purchased two LED set televisions from the 1^st opposite party with set model number UA32T4500AKXXL manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 28/02/2020.  He paid Rs. 18,700/- per T.V set and the T.V set covers 3 year warranty.

          The complainant purchased the sets on the assurance made by the 1^st opposite party about the quality of the product.  When the complainant opened one of the above sets, he noticed a crack mark behind the screen of the Television set while it’s working.  Because of that, the images on the screen were blurred.  The complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party and they asked the complainant to contact 3^rd opposite party, the authorised service centre of Samsung.  The 3^rd opposite party directed the complainant to register a complaint before the 2^nd opposite party and a technician of the 3^rd opposite party asked the complainant to send photos of defective Television set on Whatsapp.  Eventhough the complainant send the photographs; the opposite parties did not do anything.

          The complainant send Lawyer notice to the opposite parties asking to replace the defective T.V set with a new one with similar features.  1^st and 3^rd opposite parties send reply  stating false allegations.  They contended that 3^rd opposite party carried out inspection of the T.V set and found that the damages were caused due to external impact and such damages are excluded from warranty.  The damages were not present at the time of installation and occurred after the use by the complainant.

          1^st opposite party committed unfair trade practice by selling a defective T.V set to the complainant.  The T.V set has manufacturing defect.  The complainant suffered great mental pain as well as monetary loss on account of the illegal acts of the opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence he approached this Commission with a prayer

1. To direct the opposite parties to replace the defective T.V set model number UA32T4500AKXXL/2020 and serial number OAMV3NAN504720W with a new set having similar features.
2. Directing them to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant on account of the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
3. To pay the cost of the complaint and such other reliefs which the Commission deem fit to grant.

2.   Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.                           

3.   1^st opposite party in their version admitted that the complainant purchased two Television sets from them on 20/08/2020.  In the invoice issued by 1^st opposite party it is clearly stated that warranty and service liability of the product is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the T.V set.  The complainant purchased the product upon his own volition and after having convinced about the quality of the product.  The 1^st opposite party never persuaded him to purchase this product.  At the time of purchase, the staff of the 1^st opposite party had passed on every relevant information pertaining to the T.V to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer and the repair works are carried out by 3^rd opposite party.

          On receiving complainant’s notice, 1^st opposite party contacted 3^rd opposite party who carried out inspection and as per the report of the technician, the damage was due to external impact.  Such damages are excluded from the purview of warranty.  As such a damage was not present at the time of installation, it can only be presumed that it occurred after the complainant started using it.  

            There is no deficiency/unfair trade practice  on the part of this opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed.    

4.  2^nd opposite party in their version contended that they admit that the  complainant purchased two  LED T V sets from the first opposite party on 28/08/2020 for Rs. 18700/- per set but denied the averment that the  product has 3 year warranty.

                   On  21/9/2020,  one  LED Television set was brought before the service centre in connection with the issue of panel broken. The complaint was duly registered vide job card and after examination, it was found that the damage was caused due to external force and not due to any internal reason for which warranty is void. The complaint occurred only due to careless use by the complainant. Since the panel broken is a physical damage happened on the part of the complaint himself, it can be repaired only on chargeable basis. The complainant was not ready for it and was asking for replacement. Finally this opposite  party had given an estimate for discounted repair of Rs. 4000/- instead of Rs. 7329/- which was the actual charge of service.  Even then the complainant was not ready to pay for the repair.

                     There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed.

5.  From the pleadings of the both parties, the following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving that the LED Television set suffers from manufacturing defect and it is of substandard quality ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not repairing the set under warranty ?
3. Whether there is any other deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
5. Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.

6.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 – A6 marked from his side.           

     Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed proof affidavit Exts. B1 – B6 marked from the    

     side of opposite parties. No witness was examined from both sides.  

     Evidence closed. Complainant filed notes of argument.

7.  Point No.1 

      The Complainant purchased 2 LED Television sets manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 28/8/2020 and paid Rs.18,700/- per set. Complainant’s grievance  is  that when he opened one of the Televisions with model number UA32T4500AKXXL/2020 on the very next day, he noticed a crack mark behind the screen while it’s working. As a result, there is blur on the images of the screen which affected the functioning of the Television. He contacted the 1^st opposite party immediately and they directed him to contact 3^rd opposite party, Samsung service Centre and registered a complaint with them. A technician of 3^rd opposite party asked him to send photos of the Television set and accordingly he sent photographs to the Whatsapp number given. But after that, nobody came to check the issues.

8.  Opposite parties in their version admitted that the complainant purchased a Samsung LED Television manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party, their dealer on 28/8/2020.

               The product has one year warranty from the date of purchase. The complainant lodged a complaint with 2^nd opposite party on 29/8/2020 regarding the Television set. As per the images shared, it is ascertained that the said LED Television was physically damaged on account of mishandling/misuse on the part of the complainant and the panel was broken. The terms of warranty specifically provide that “defects arising out of physical damage/electrical damage” are not covered under the warranty. So repair would be done on chargeable basis only as the warranty has become void. Accordingly they gave a repair estimate which was not approved by the complainant.

9.  From the pleadings, it is clear that the LED Television was purchased on 28/8/2020 and the complainant  lodged complaint regarding the crack on 29/8/2020, ie the very next day itself. The opposite parties allegation regarding mishandling and misuse by the complainant cannot be acceptable in this case. Because after installation, the very next day complainant noticed this defect and lodged a complaint with 3^rd opposite party, their service centre. As per the complainant, eventhough he sent photographs of the defective Television through the Whatsapp number which was given by the technician of the 3^rd opposite party; nobody from the service centre came and inspected the set. They came to the conclusion of physical damage due to mishandling only by seeing the photographs. As per Exts. B6, reply to Lawyer notice send by the 2^nd opposite party, it is seen that “As per the images shared by your client, it is ascertained that the said LED Television was physically damaged on account of mishandling/misuse on part of your client and the panel was broken..”

10. In their affidavit, 2^nd opposite party stated that on 21/9/2020, the Television set was brought before the service centre in connection with the issue of panel broken. The complaint was registered and after examination they found that the damage was caused due to external force and not due to any internal reason which is a warranty void condition.

11. The complainant’s allegation is that the defect in the Television is due to manufacturing defect. Eventhough he has not taken out any expert opinion to prove that, considering the fact that the alleged defect was noticed the very next day after it was purchased and installed, there is no chance for the misuse by the complainant.  Merely because the  complainant noticed the complaint  after installation, it cannot be said that the complainant is a        contributory to the damages. Opposite parties also admitted the lodging of complaint on the next day of its purchase. This is a  fit case to adopt       Res ipsa Liquator.  So point no.1 is decided accordingly.

 Points : 2 to 5 are considered together.

12  The opposite party’s denial to replace/repair the Television under warranty is a clear deficiency in service on their part. According to the complainant, the opposite parties did not even send technician to check the issues in the Television. They came to the conclusion of physical damage on seeing the photographs. The opposite parties did not take any steps to prove their contention of misuse/mishandling by cross examining the complainant. Since the product is under warranty, the opposite parties are bound to replace the Television set or cure the defects free of cost. Further on receiving the complaint, the 3^rd opposite party’s technicians did not inspect or find out the issue. Since the defect happened on the next day of purchase, the contention put forth by the complainant appears to be more probable. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not replacing/repairing the Television set and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that.

             In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally

1. To pay Rs.18,700/- being the cost of the Television together with 10% interest from 28/8/2020 till realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
3. The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
4. To ease the burden of complainant, the 1^st opposite party shall initially pay the entire aforesaid amount to the complainant and the opposite parties may set off/settle their share during the course of their routine business.

                   Once the order is complied, the opposite party is directed to take back the defective Television set from the complainant.

Pronounced in open court on this the 22^th day of June, 2023.

                                                                                            Sd/-        

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                         Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: GST Invoice dated 28/08/2020.

Ext. A2: E-way bill dated 28/08/2020.

Ext. A3: Lawyer notice and postal receipt dated 08/09/2020.

Ext. A4: Copy of Acknowledgement card.

Ext. A5: Reply notice dated 24/09/2020.

Ext. A6: Warranty card.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Ext. B1: Power of Attorney issued by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. dated

             13/01/2020.

Ext. B2: Copy of Technical Report dated 21/09/2020.

Ext. B3: Images of damaged television.

Ext. B4: Copy of the warranty card.

Ext. B5: Copy of Estimation dated 21/09/2020.

Ext. B6: Reply Notice by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. dated

              29/09/2020.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side:

Cost:  Rs.10,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.