DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  4^th day of November, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 11/10/2018    

     CC/126/2018

Prema K.P.,

D/o.K.Ponnan,

21/334C, Noorjahan Lane,

Kulappully P.O.,

Shoranur

Presently residing at

Karthika Nivas Apartments,

Mariamman Thervu Road,

Kanniampuram (PO),

Ottapalam – 679 104.                                                -           Complainant

(Party in person)  

                                                                                    Vs

1. Proprietor,

       Kochukudiyil Agencies,

       Doha Tower,

       R.S.Road, Ottapalam – 679 101

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

       20^th-24^th Floors, Two Horizon Centre,

       Self Course Road, Sector – 43,

       DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Hariyana – 122 202      -                       Opposite parties

            (O.P.1  by Adv.Abdul Rasheed

               OP2 by Manimangalam Sameer Babu.

               & K.R. Santhosh kumar)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant purchased a Samsung Television from the 1^st opposite party shop. During the flood of 2018, the TV was damaged by water logging and the complainant handed over the TV to the 1^st opposite party store for repair campaign that was being held by the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party failed to report the damage to the 2^nd opposite party even after the TV being handed over to the 1^st opposite party. It was only after the complainant had intervened that the 1^st opposite party registered the complaint. Even after registration, the 1^st opposite party blew hot and cold and did not reveal the actual problem to the complainant. Later on, they informed that the damage suffered by the complainant’s TV was not rectifiable under the scheme of the 2^nd opposite party. Upon the 1^st opposite party returning the TV, she found that the T.V. had suffered a fall, while it was in the custody and charge of the 1^st opposite party. She is aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and sought for the cost of the TV and incidental reliefs. .
2. The 1^st opposite party filed version disputing the complaint pleadings. The stated that they had registered the complaint with the manufacturer and the manufacturer had informed that the complaint suffered by the T.V. was not covered under the scheme for flood affected T.V, and the same was informed to the complainant. The TV was repaired under payment effected by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant visited the opposite party again and informed that the T.V had developed further snags and caused a ruckus in the shop. The opposite party had carried out all the works responsibly. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of manufacturer. They sought for dismissal of complaint.
3. Even though the manufacturer was impleaded as the additional 2^nd opposite party, in view of the submission made by the complainant that she is not seeking any relief as against the manufacturer, we are not looking into any aspects relating to them. Opposite party 2 stand absolved of any liability.  

4.         Issues to be considered are as follows:

1.         Whether there is any delay on the part of the 1^st opposite party in informing the 2^nd additional opposite party?

2.         Whether the TV suffers from damage owing to negligence on the part of the 1^st opposite party?

3.         Whether there is any deficiency in  service on the part of the 1^st opposite party?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

5.         Any other Reliefs?

5.         Evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 and A2. M.O. sought to be produced was not produced. Opposite parties adduced no evidence. No documents were produced or marked by any of the 1^st opposite party to substantiate their case.

            Issue Nos. 1 & 2

6.         Complainant’s grievance are three fold:

1.         That the 1^st opposite party did not inform the manufacturer regarding the defects suffered by the complainant’s T.V. in time.

2.         That the 1^st opposite party is hiding relevant matters regarding the condition of the T.V.; and

3.         That  the T.V. suffered fall while in the custody of the opposite party 1.

7.         For the sake of easy consideration of matters to be adjudicated, we will consider the 3^rd grievance of the complainant that the TV had suffered damages by a fall while in the custody and charge of the 1^st opposite party. Answering this complaint will answer Issue no. 2 also.

The complainant has adduced no evidence by way of examination of the TV by an Expert Commissioner or any evidence at all to prove that the TV was suffering from any impact damages. Consequently the complainant has failed to prove that the T.V. is suffering from any damages. So the 3^rd grievance can be ignored. Therefore issue no. 2 can only be held against the complainant.

8.         The complainant has unequivocally pleaded that the 1^st opposite party had not registered the damages suffered by the T.V. with the technicians of the 2^nd opposite party. She also doubts the actions taken by the 1^st opposite party after having handed over the T.V. to the opposite party.

9.         To the said grievance aired by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party had given only  a flimsy reply. There is no specific denial or production of any documents evidencing registration of the complaint suffered by the complainant’s T.V. with the manufacturer or reply from the technicians of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has also failed to adduce any evidence regarding the repairs carried out by availing payments from the complainant. We are not inclined to believe that such registrations and replies by the manufacturer are made by mere verbal intimations.

10.       In such circumstances, we are left with no alternative than to hold that the opposite party has failed to prove their pleadings regarding filing of complaint or receiving 2^nd opposite party’s technician’s report/opinion. Pleadings of the complainant are not supported by any cogent evidence and therefore fails.

Issue no. 3.

11.       Apropos the findings above we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

            Issue Nos. 4 & 5

12.       In view of the discussions above we hold as follows:

1.         The opposite party 1 is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service.

2.         An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is directed to be paid as cost of these proceedings.

The 1^st opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the 1^st opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 04^th  day of November, 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

          Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  - Invoice bearing No.KA003303 dated 1/2/2017    

Ext.A2  - Cash receipt bearing No.6256 dated 17/9/2018    

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  

Nil

Court Exhibit: 

 Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

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.