Orissa

Debagarh

CC/19/2019

Naresh Chandra Pani, aged about 63 Yrs, S/O-Late Palau Pani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Pradhan Stationary Store - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.C. Case No-  19 /2019.

Present-     Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Naresh Chandra Pani, aged about 63 Yrs,

S/O-Late Palau Pani,

R/O.-Babusahi,New Colony(Bada Bagicha),

P.O/P.S/Dist/-Deogarh.                                                 ….        Complainant.

 

Versus

1. The Proprietor,

          Pradhan Stationary Store,

          At/P.O/P.S-Rengali, Dist-Angul, (Orissa).   

2. The Manager,

          Anima Electronics and Appliances,

           Authorised Samsung Service Centre,

           Near Birsa Munda Kalyan Munda,

           Budharaja, Sambalpur.

3. The Manager Customer Care Centre,

           Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.

          21^st floor, Two Horizon Centre   

          Golf Course Road, DCF Phase-V, Sector-43,

           Gurugaon, Haryana-122002.

4. The Manufacturer,

          Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd

          2^nd, 3^rd &4th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square,

           Sector-43, Gurgaon-122009, Haryana, India.            .… Opposite Parties.

 

For the Complainant       : -        Nemo

  For the O.P-1                      :-         Nemo

For the O.P-2                      :-         None

For the O.P-3&4                :-         Sri. M.N Sharma, Advocate. 

 

                                    DATE OF HEARING: 18.07.2019, DATE OF ORDER: 22.07.2019.

 

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President-Brief facts of the case is that-  the Complainant has purchased one Samsung TV in the year 2002 of model CZ ZIE4V10212 Serial No- 3ZAT908134x from the O.P-1 by paying Rs.12,200/ which was  warranted for 10 years from the date of purchase. On dtd. 15.11.2015 the Complainant observed the picture in the TV is not clearly visible due to low brightness and contrast making the picture hazy on the display screen. The Complainant made contact with the O.P-1 who directed him to visit the Authorised Service centre who is O.P-2 in this case. The O.P-2, sent a Service Personnel to the house of the Complainant to attend the call who inspected the TV set, found the regulator defective and replaced it for which the TV functioned properly. Again on dtd. 08.09.2017 the Complainant found the same problem as before he informed the matter to the O.P-2 and Service Personnel attend the problem accordingly. This time he found the Electronic Panel (KIT) defective and took the KIT with him for repair. The Complainant received a message on his mobile phone from the Samsung Customer Care Centre on dtd. 13.09.2017 for payments of Rs 295.00 towards the service availed from the O.P-2 vide request no-4244550166 but the defect was not removed. As the Electronic Panel (KIT) is taken away for repairing and not returned by the Service Personnel deputed by the O.P-2, the said TV set is lying in idle condition till today for which the Complainant is now going through financial loss, mental pain and agony as a reason of “Deficiency in Service” committed by O.Ps.

But as per the O.P-1 he is the authorised dealer to sell Samsung make electronics products. He has provided required services within warranty period. Again the TV set was in functional condition from the year 2005 to 2015 and the warranty is over in 2012. The O.P-1 has no knowledge about the defect in the said TV set on dtd. 04.1.2015 as the Complainant is transferred from Rengali Dam and never made any contact to the O.P-1. Hence he is not responsible for Deficiency in service if any, caused to him.

Again written statements filed by the Advocate on behalf of the O.P.3 & 4 where he claims that the Complainant petition is not maintainable as it contains vague, baseless and with malafide intension which does not comes under the purview of Consumer Disputes. There is no manufacturing defect is proved in the TV set hence they have not committed any deficiency in services. That the O.P-3 & 4 do business of selling products on principal to principal basis and their responsibility lies on to provide required services within the warranty period free of cost for one year from the date of purchase. He denied that the TV set is warranted for 10 years. The O.P-3 & 4 has no knowledge about the defect of the said TV set as it was out of warranty and denied the fact that the Complainant has ever lodged any complaint with the O.P-2 and availed any paid services and also they have least concern that the Electronic Panel (KIT) is taken away for repairing by the O.P-2. Again he contended that the Complaint is lodged after expiry of warranty period to settle his unjustified and unlawful demand. The Complainant has failed to establish the deficiency as he has not submitted any TECHNICAL EXPERT REPORT to support his claim which is most essential. Hence allegations made in the complaint are being false, fabricated and frivolous one deserves to be dismissed.

 

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a Consumer as he has purchased Samsung TV from the O.P-1. On receiving a Complaint from the Complainant the service personnel from O.P-2 came to the Complainant and after inspection removed and replaced the defective regulator from the TV. But in the second time he removed the Electronic Panel (KIT) from the said TV and took with him to find a proper match & service. But he never came again with the above parts to replace it in the T.V.  for which it is now in idle condition. Again it is the duty of the service personnel to issue expert opinion report to the complainant. Here the negligence and carelessness of the O.P-2 towards their customers is clearly understood which amounts to deficiency in service.  Again as per the statements made in the written statements the O.P-3 being a reputed Company for household products he is well supported by the Service centres to provide after sale services to the customers , which manned by qualified and experienced personnel through a large network of Authorised Service Centres. So the O.P-3 is held responsible and answerable for every negligence, discrepancies, deviations or irregularities by the O.P-2. Hence in the present case both the O,P-2 & 3 are responsible for Committing  “Deficiency in Service” to the Complainant U/S 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-1986.  The case is well settled in the matter of M/S Samsung India Electronic  Vs. Sambhaji Ramji Patil Umrekar, on 26^th  November, 2013 decided by “State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharastra (CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD)”. Again as the O.P-1 has provided the contact number of the O.P-2 & 3 to the Complainant and helped him in various possible ways, the allegation of deficiency in service on his part is not proved, hence he is discharged from the liabilities.

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-2 ,3 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective Electronic Panel (KIT) in the TV with a new defect free Electronic Panel (KIT) to make it run properly with prominent picture within 30(thirty days) of receiving this order. The O,P-2, 3 & 4 are further directed to pay Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand)as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.   

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 22^nd   day of July-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                            I  agree,                                          

 

MEMBER.                                       MEMBER.(W)                               PRESIDENT          

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

 

                                                                       PRESIDENT