DATE OF FILING : 5.2.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  28th  day of  July,  2017

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.38/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Mathew K.J.B.,

Kallarackal House,

    Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                        :   1.  The Managing Director,

     Samsung India Ltd.,

     Noida, Uthar Pradesh.

     (By Advs : P. Jayabal Menon

& Babichen V. George)

2.  The Manager,

     United Electronics,

     Edappally, Kochi. 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

        Complainant purchased a ‘Plasma TV’  manufactured  by 1st  opposite party, by paying  an amount of Rs.55,000/- from Bangalore, on 29.5.2013.  At the time of purchase, the sales manager of the shop promised that this television is having high quality and they provide after sale service all over India and the 2nd opposite party, being the authorized service agent will provide all the after sale service in their town.  After some weeks of purchase of TV, it showed some defects in its performance and on intimation, service technician of 2nd opposite party, after inspection, changed its panel board.  After some months, the same problem repeated to the TV and again its panel replaced and due to the continuous mechanical defects, the 2nd opposite party replaced it with a new TV and granted extended warranty for three years from 2014, by receiving an amount of Rs.9735/- from the complainant as extended warranty charges. (cont...2)

-  2  -

        After replacing with the new TV, within 8 months, this TV also showed defects in its performance and on intimation, again the technician inspected and said that this TV is also having the same  defect of the former TV and they will replace its panel board soon.  But thereafter no response  from the part of the 2nd opposite party and so many times the complainant contacted them and they are not turned up to attend the complaint.  The complainant further stated that, since the TV is having extended warranty till 27.5.2017, the opposite parties are bound to replace the TV with a new one or repay the amount of Rs.55,000/-.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties for getting the TV replaced or its purchase price along with other consequential reliefs.

        On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed version.  In their version, opposite parties contended that, as a matter of policy, 1st opposite party issued prompt after sales service in warranty period.  There is no manufacturing defect to the TV and if so, complainant is bound to prove it with technical experts.  Moreover, the TV in question has not been brought in for any repair, nor has any authorized service center been contacted by the complainant complaining of alleged complaint.  Without doing so, the opposite party is not in a position to comment on the alleged complaints to the alleged TV.  If the complainant is ready to give the TV for repair to any authorized service centre, it can look into the same and do the needful, as possible.  Opposite party further contended that, the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the TV and the extended warranty refunded.

        Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the Samsung warranty certificate.  Ext.P2 is tax invoice dated 29.5.2013.  Ext.P3 is tax invoice dated 16.7.2013.  Ext.P4 is cash transfer memo.  Ext.P5(series) are computer print out of communication between the complainant and opposite party.  From the side of opposite party, one Thomas, authorized service technician of 1st opposite party examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 letter of authorization is marked.               (cont...3)

-  3  -

        Heard both sides.

        The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

        The POINT :-  It is an admitted fact that the TV purchased by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.55,000/- manufactured by the 1st opposite party was replaced due to its manufacturing defect, to a new one.  To the new TV, company provided 3 years extended warranty by receiving an amount of Rs.9735/- from the complainant and again the new TV showed the same complaint of the former TV.  This complaint is attended by the service technician of 1st opposite party and opined that the panel board is defective and they will replace it on its availability.  Thereafter no effort was taken by either of the opposite parties to solve the problem.  Hence the complainant approached the Forum to redress his grievances.  In this case, no need of any expert opinion to convince that whether the TV in question is having any defect, because it is confirmed by the service technician of the Samsung itself.  Moreover, the extended warranty that given by the 1st opposite party, after receiving an amount of Rs.9735/- from the complainant is not denied and it is in force upto the 5th month of 2017.  No clear and specific evidence produced by the opposite party to convince the Forum that they solved the defects of the TV alleged in the complaint with the full satisfaction of the customer.  From the deposition of the authorized service technician, DW1, we can see that the technicians attached to his office attended the complaint only once, but not cured the defect of the TV.  No sufficient reason is stated by the witness why they cannot cure the defect.  In addition to it, the witness admitted that the 1st opposite party is legally bound to replace the TV or repay its purchase amount. 

        From the above discussion, we are satisfied to held that the complainant prima facie established that the act of the opposite parties are gross deficiency in their service.  

(cont...4)

-  4  -

        Hence the complaint allowed.  1st opposite party is directed to cure the defects of the TV with the full satisfaction of the complainant with free of cost or else replace it with a new one.  The 1st opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default till its realization.

                 Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2017

 

             Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

     Sd/-

       SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -  Mathew K.J.B.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Thomas C.M.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1                -  Samsung warranty certificate.  

Ext.P2             -  tax invoice dated 29.5.2013.  

Ext.P3             -  tax invoice dated 16.7.2013.  

Ext.P4             - cash transfer memo.  

Ext.P5(series) - computer print out of communication between 

        the complainant and opposite party. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -    Authorization letter. 

 

        Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT