DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 20th day of September, 2019
C.D Case No. 73 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Abani Kumar Jena
S/o Sanyasi Jena
At/Po: Talagopabindha,
Via: Arnapal,
Ps: Tihidi,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Managing Director,
Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.
Ground Floor front Tower Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate
New Delhi
2. The Manager, S.P Sales
At: Chhapulia,
Po; By-pass,
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri B. Mohanty & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri M. Nath Sharma
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Set Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 24.04.2018
Date of order: 20.09.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps to the effect that the complainant purchased a Samsung TV Set from OP No. 2 bearing retail invoice No. 1253 on 07.10.2016 paying Rs 12,500/- to the OP No. 2 Annexure- 1. Besides the TV Set the OP No. 2 had given the warranty card i.e. Samsung Television extended warranty, with Samsung 2 years warranty certificate in the name of complainant with seal and signature of OP No. 2 as Annexure- 2. The complainant used the TV Set for about two months after that one defect was appeared on the monitor of the TV Set. The defect is web like picture, which is not visible. It is also sometimes hazy. The pictures were not clear to look at, on the cable connection on the same cable connection the other connected TV Sets were very clear motion picture. In comparison with that picture the complainant TV Set did not provide total service. Being suggested by the OP No. 2 the complainant took the TV Set to the service center of the O.Ps. They repaired a said TV Set and returned the same to the complainant. When the complainant stated using the TV Set the same type of difficulties arose. The complainant took the said TV Set to the service center but the O.Ps found out manufacturing defect in the said TV Set. The complainant used TV Set under warranty coverage. As the model No. UA24H4003 which is reflected in Annexure. The cause of action arose in this case as the O.Ps did not react on the Advocate notice on 12.09.2017 by the complainant or remedial measures. The O.Ps promised to repair the TV Set within the warranty period but they were failed to do so. So the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice arose against the O.Ps towards the complainant which compelled the later to take shelter in this Forum for redressal. Hence the complainant sought for the following reliefs.
1. To replace a new TV Set or refund the money amounted in retail invoice of OP No. 2 with bank interest from date of purchase.
2. There should be an award to Rs 20,000/- towards mental agony as the complainant incurred a heavy mental agony and physical torture along with the cost of litigation Rs 10,000/- be awarded in favour of the complainant besides any order may pass in favour of complainant which the Court deems fit and proper.
Documents relied upon the complainant.
1. Retail invoice dt. 17.10.2016, No. 1253, Annexure- 1.
2. 2 years warranty certificate Samsung TV, Annexure- 2.
3. Samsung Television extended warranty, Annexure- 2.
4. Warranty condition as the product, Annexure- 3.
5. Advocate notice on 12.09.2017, Annexure- 4.
The OP No. 1 appeared in this Forum through his Authorized Signatory of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and filed his written version as follows. The OP has admitted the Para No. 1, 2 & 3 of the complaint. It is submitted that the answering OP do business of selling products with its dealer on principal to principal basis. The answering OP has no control or interfere in the business of the complainant. It is further submitted that the answering OP role is limited up to the product quality and warranty benefits of the TV Set in question. This TV Set is well known product in market and carries a warranty against any malfunction in TV Set which means product (TV Set) shall be repaired free of cost up to two year from the date of purchase if any trouble crops up. This warranty is provided by manufacturer under some terms and conditions which must be followed by the customers.
That the contents of Para No. 4 & 5 as stated are denied being false and incorrect. It is submitted that the complainant has lodges his complaint with answering OP regarding web like picture issue in the TV Set. The answering O.Ps have changed the defect of TV Set under the terms of warranty by the service center. The TV Set was delivered to the complainant and the complainant before taking back his TV Set thoroughly checked the working of TV Set. In this respect the complainant also gave satisfaction note in witness to satisfactory working of TV Set. The TV Set was immediately handed over to the complainant and the complainant before taking back his TV Set thoroughly checked the working of TV Set and after satisfying himself regarding working of TV Set. After receiving the TV Set the complainant demand a new one which is working fine.
Hence the OP No. 1 has sought for the dismissal of this proceeding. The OP No. 1 has neither relied upon the filed any document to support his stands.
The OP No. 2 took no steps, several opportunities have been granted to the OP No. 2 for appearance and filing written version. He has neither appeared nor filed the written version and any document to support his stands. Hence the OP No. 2 has been set ex-parte.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written version filed by the complainant and the OP No. 1 as well as the documents filed by him. The case of complainant is that he purchased a new Samsung TV Set. On 17.102.016 from the authorized dealer as OP No. 2, having 2 years warranty certificate. The complainant used the TV Set about 2 months after that the defect appeared on the monitor of the TV Set as the web like picture which is not visible, pertaining to the above defect the complainant informed to the OP No. 2 for removal on the recommendation of OP No. 2. The complainant had taken his TV Set to OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 repaired it and returned the same when the complainant used the same the some defective picture appeared on the monitor. Pertaining to the above back drop the complainant informed by way of an advocate to notice to O.Ps. But the O.Ps did not concerned to the fact, for which the complainant has taken shelter under Hon’ble Forum for redressal of his grievance. The O.Ps are not solving the post purchase difficulties and grievance of the customer it amounts to unfair trade practice deficiency in service. In the written version of the O.Ps categorically stated they have service station toll free number all these are in writing, practically it has no significance. Giving these by promise by the O.Ps are attracting the customers to purchase their product and falsely assisting under an impression good consumerism. Practically the O.Ps are not assisting the consumer in their post purchase phenomenal duty. In their written version the OP No. 1 also imposing the burden on the complainant as the complainant did not use the product. It is a wild and blatant allegation against the consumer to just to hide their responsibility in public domain and enhance good consumerism. If the OP No. 2 could have appeared and filed his written version then the truth would have come to the limelight. In this case the complainant is emphasizing upon the OP No. 2. The entire complaint says that the OP No. 2 is the authorized dealer of the OP No. 1. After observing the fact we have reached at the conclusion that the OP No. 2 is much more liable for the negligence but both the O.Ps are equally failed liable for the deficiency of service as well as the dishonest trade practice. Non appearance of the OP No. 2 reveals that he is trying to escape from the liabilities. Further the OP No. 1 has not filed a single document to prove him as innocent. Both the O.Ps are equally liable for the deficiency of service and dishonest trade practice. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against OP No. 1 on contest and OP No. 2 on ex-parte. Both parties are here by directed to refund the money which amount to Rs 12,500/- to the complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment. The O.ps are further directed to pay Rs 3,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the litigation. Both the O.Ps are also further directed to comply the order within 30 days failing which 9% interest will be imposed upon both the O.Ps.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 20th September, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
