THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 10^TH day of February, 2015

C.C.No.92/2013

Between:

V.Seshapani Setty,

S/o Rama Subbaiah,

H.No.40/799-A,

Srinivasa Nagar,

Kurnool-518 001.                                                            …Complainant

-Vs-

1. The Proprietor,

    DB Electronics and Appliance,

    49-9-A2, Park Road,

    Kurnool-518 001.

2. Service Incharge,

    Gowtham Servicing Centre,

    Samsung Authorized Service Centre,

    H.No.44/148,

    Prakash Nagar,

    Kurnool-518 004.                                                          …OPPOSITE PARTIES

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte and Sri. Poluri Bhaskar, and Sri.B.Jyothi Prakash, Advocates for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                                                                                   ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)

   C.C. No.92/2013

1.       This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To return to price of Television Rs.32,000/- with interest from the date of purchase of Television i.e., on 31-07-2012 to till the date of realization

(OR)

To replace the new Television in similar model without any defect.

2. To grant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony.

And

3. To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The opposite party No.1 is the proprietor of DB Electronics and appliance at Kurnool and opposite party No.2 is the service in charge of Samsung Authorized Service Centre at Kurnool.  The complainant purchased New Model SAMSUNG LED TV from opposite party No.1 for Rs.32,000/- dated 31.07.2012.  A warranty card for a period one year was issued in favour of the complainant.  After 10 days of its purchase the problem was arosed in TV.  The complainant informed the said facts to opposite parties and they sent a mechanic to rectify the defects.   Again the problems arosed that the TV was not playing properly, on the complaint of complainant the opposite party No.2 mechanic came and changed the defective parts in main board but it was not rectified, at last the mechanic suggested that it is not possible to repair it due to manufacture defects, it is better to replace with new TV in the place of defective TV.  The complainant approached several times to opposite parties in regard to replacement of TV but they were negligently talked with the complainant.   The opposite parties doing the unfair trade practice and cheating the consumers by selling low standard material.   Hence the complaint.        

3.       Opposite party No.1 called absent and set exparte.

                   Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased Samsung LED Television on 31.07.2012 from opposite party No.1.  It is submitted that for the first time the problem arosed on 30.03.2013 that USB movie completely not playing.  The opposite party No.2 Engineer found that MP4 format movie is not supporting after 1.20 hours, Main Board replaced by this opposite party but the problem could not be resolved as MP4  format requires huge memory where as the memory in the Main Board is limited.  Similarly the hardware of this particular television is not compatible to play the MP4 format as there is a limitation of the hard ware and which was conveyed to the complainant and closed the call.  Subsequently the similar call was lodged by the same complainant on 15.05.2013 after explaining the same the call was closed.  Thus there is neither manufacturing defect nor any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.  Sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.  Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 marked.

5.       Complainant and opposite party No.2 filed written arguments.

6.       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7.      Points i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant purchased Samsung LED Television in model UA 32EH5000 RLXL from opposite party No.1 for Rs.32,000/- dated 31.07.2012.  A warranty card for a period of one year was issued in favour of the complainant.  The purchased Bill invoice No.392 is marked as Ex.A1 and the user manual along with warranty card is marked as Ex.A2.  It is the case of complainant that the opposite parties made advertisements in regard to the New Model Samsung LED TV.  The complainant attracted the advertisement and purchased the Samsung TV from opposite party No.1, but as per the usual manual programmes, the said TV was not playing properly, after 10 days of its purchase, the problems arose in it and the complainant made a complaint No.BP 8423382953 to opposite parties, the machine of opposite party No.2 came and rectify the defect.  But within a warranty period, again the problems arose in the said TV, the machine of opposite party No.2 replaced some parts in Main Board but the defects were not rectified.  Thus he stated that it is not possible to repair it, replace with new TV in the place of defective TV.  The complainant requested them to replace it but they did not take any steps to replace it.  The opposite party No.2 issued Job Card on two times of repairs requests dated 30.03.2013, which is marked as Ex.X2 and on 15.05.2013 it is marked as Ex.X1.

          It is the case of opposite party No.2 that the complaint arose first time on 30.03.2013 the USB movie completely not playing thereafter the Engineer of opposite party No.2 found the defect as “MP4 format movie is not supporting after 1.20 hours”.  Main Board replaced by opposite party No.2 but the problem could not resolve.  There is a hardware limitation and there is no solution feasible on 15.05.2013 similar call was logged by the complainant so the call was closed.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.2 stated the same in his written arguments.

8.       The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the said Television was functioning improperly soon after purchased and within the warranty period.  The opposite parties did not take steps to replace the defective TV.  To support his version he cited decisions reported in III (2005) CPJ Page 258 Sri Ram Steel Udyog Private Limited -Vs- Rajeshwar Nath Agarwal Uttar Pradesh State Commission  where in it was held that the TV set Functioning improperly soon after purchase.  Defective set neither repaired, nor replaced complaint allowed by Forum and upheld in appeal.  In IV (2012) CPJ Page 87 Rajastan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Terex Vectra Private Limited -Vs- Meharchand.  It was held that manufacturing defect in vehicle.  Some Parts were replaced thrice within seven months of its purchase.  There had been main defect in vehicle so replacement of vehicle is directed. 

Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to purchase of Samsung Television for Rs.32,000/- under Ex.A1 dated 31.07.2012 and the opposite parties provided warranty for a period of one year to the said Television and Warranty Card issued in favour of the complainant  under Ex.A2.  It is also not under dispute that the said Television was functioning improperly as per the user manual during the warranty period and the opposite party No.2 issued Job Cards at two occasions dated 30.03.2013 and 15.05.2013 under Ex.X1 and Ex.X2.  As per the Job Card itself the replacement was made in Main Board but the problem was not resolved.  It appears to be a manufacturing defect in said Television itself.  Though the notice served on opposite party No.1 the opposite party No.1 neither appear nor choose to file written version on behalf of opposite party No.1.  We persued all the material available on record and in the light of above decisions we hold a view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and due to negligent attitude of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony.  Hence the opposite parties are directed either to replace the TV by giving the complainant a new in similar model TV or in the alternative make the payment of the TV as per the purchase bill.  The complainant also entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony.

9.      Point No.iii:- The complainant prayed to direct the opposite parties to return the price of TV Rs.32,000/- with interest from the date of purchase 31.07.2012 to till the date of payment or to replace the new TV in similar model and further Rs.5,000/- for mental agony.  We consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold an opinion that the opposite parties are directed to replace the new Television in similar model, or to return the price of TV Rs.32,000/- with at 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e., on 31.07.2012 till the date of realization and further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as a cost of the case.

10.     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the new Television in Similar Model or to return the price of TV Rs.32,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of purchase i.e., on 31-07-2012 till the date of payment.  The complainant has to return the defective TV to the opposite parties on the replacement of new TV or return the purchase amount.  The opposite parties further direct to pay Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of February, 2015.

                                                           Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                Witnesses Examined

For the complainants:- Nil                    For the opposite parties:- Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-

Ex.A1          Purchase Bill Invoice No.392 dated 31-07-2012.

Ex.A2          User Manual (Warranty Card/Safety Notice).

Ex.X1         Customer Service Record Card No.6180 dated 15-05-2013.

Ex.X2         Customer Service Record Card No.5331 dated 30-03-2013.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil

                                                         Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties    :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :