IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of April, 2016
Filed on 09.10.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.253/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Devaraj 1. The Proprietor, Good Morning
Puthenpurambil Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., CCSB Road
Avalookkunnu P.O. Alappuzha
Alappuzha
(By Adv. R. Rajendra Prasad) 2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
A25, Ground Floor, Front Tower
Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, New Delhi – 110 044
Represented by its General Manager
(By Adv. A.T. Aneeshmon – for
Opposite parties 1 and 2)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
On 3.1.2013 complainant purchased a television from the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.99,900/- manufactured by the second opposite party. According to the complainant, the product has an extended warranty of one year. After 6 months from the date of purchase the speaker of the said TV was not working and the defect was rectified by the opposite party. Later during the first week of December 2013, the product became again defective and it was repaired b y the opposite party. On 26.8.2014 the TV became again defective and the technician of the second opposite party informed the complainant that the product is has manufacturing defect. Further the opposite party informed told the complainant that the warranty period has been expired and demanded for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for repairing charge. According to the complainant, the opposite parties issued the complainant the extended warranty card for one year. Since the opposite party has not repaired the defect the complainant was forced to pay Rs.10,000/- for repairing charge. So the complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking replacement of the television and refund of the amount paid as repairing charge together with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties. Both the parties appeared before this Forum and filed version. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The first opposite party is the dealer of the product. The manufacturer is responsible for the warranty and the first opposite party is not liable and hence they may be exempted.
3. The version of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. As per the records maintained by the opposite parties, the complainant has not availed the extended warranty. On 26.8.2014 the complainant reported “no display”, since the television was out of warranty, they demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the repairing charges. Further the alleged manufacturing defect was not proved by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party. So the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A4 were marked.
5. Considering the allegations of both parties, the Forum has raised the following points for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
6. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that on 3.1.2013 the complainant had purchased a television from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.99,900/-. The product has one year extended warranty and during the said period the opposite party charged an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards repairing charges. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the retail invoice dated 3.1.2013 for an amount of Rs.99,900/- from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party. Ext.A2 is the bill dated 20.9.2014, Ext.A3 is the bill dated 23.10.2014 and Ext.A4 is the bill dated 24.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.200/-. Even though the complainant alleged that the product is having one year extended warranty, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. There is absolutely no evidence before us to believe that the product has one year extended warranty. From the available document it can be seen that the defect was noted after the warranty period. So we cannot direct the opposite parties to refund the repairing charges. The alleged manufacturing defect was also not proved. So we cannot direct the opposite party to replace the television as prayed for. At the time of hearing the counsel of the complainant submitted that even though an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been spent by the complainant towards the repairing charges, but the product is not working properly. The opposite parties have accepted the repairing charges without properly curing the defect. Hence we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complaint. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to repair the product properly free of cost. So the complaint is allowed party
In the result, the opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects and make the product in perfect working condition free of cost with a warranty of 6 months. There is no order as to compensation and costs. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2016.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.K. Sasidharan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Retail invoice dated 3.1.2013 for an amount of Rs.99,900/-
Ext.A2 - Bill dated 20.9.2014
Ext.A3 - Bill dated 23.10.2014
Ext.A4 - Bill dated 24.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.200/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
