Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/28/2015

R.S.Raghavan, Sudharshan Associats - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thirumala Electronics Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

R.Rajesh Vivekananthan

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   08.12.2014

                                                                      Date of Order :   01.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                

C.C.NO.28/2015

THURSDAY THIS  1^ST  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Mr. R.S. Raghevan,

M/s. Sudharshan Associates,

No.5/24-A, Voltas Colony Extension,

Nanganallur,

Chennai 600 061.                                                       ..Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Thirumalaa Electronics,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.68, Poomagal Main Road,

Ekkattuthangal,

Chennai 600 032.

 

2. M/s. Samsung India

Electronics Private Limited,

Rep. by its Administrative Head,

No.2, 3 & 4^th Floor, Tower-C,

Vipul Tech Square,

Golf Course Road,

Gurgaon Sector – 43.

Gurgaon 122 002.                                              ..Opposite parties.    

 

 

For the Complainant         :   M/s. R.Rajesh Vivekananthan & another         

For the opposite party-1   :   Exparte.

For the opposite party-2   :   M/s. V.V.Giridharan.     

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the T.V. with same model and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.   

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that he had purchased a colour T.V. of the 2^nd opposite party.   The said T.V has developed a minor defect in the month of August 2014.   He lodged a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party on 1.8.2014.   The 2^nd opposite party sent a service engineer of the 1^st opposite party who attended on 2.8.2014 and complainant has paid a sum of Rs.562/- as labour charge.   Again the said TV was found not properly functioning in the end of the same month.  When the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for repair the 2^nd opposite party has not attended the repair work saying that said TV was old one and for repair, it requires spare parts, whereas  the spare parts of the said TV were not been manufactured at present as such the said repair work could not be attended  which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  As such the complainant has sought for to replace the T.V. with same model and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.    Hence the complaint.   

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 1^st opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 1^st opposite party was set exparte on 13.4.2015.  

Written Version of 2^nd opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

3.     The 2^nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the service engineer had rectified the defect and after the service the television set was working and without any objection the complainant has made the payment for the service provided by the 2^nd opposite party from the above it is very clear that the averment made by the complainant is per-se false.    The 2^nd opposite party also states that after two months period the complainant has once again made a service call to the 2^nd opposite party for the complaint that the Television set has become dead.   On inspection of T.V. it was found that as the Television set is a very old one certain spare parts in the television was worn out and that has to be changed however on verification it was found that as 2^nd opposite party has stopped the production of CRT Monitor television set long back and the spare parts which needs to be changed was not available with the 2^nd opposite party and the same was duly informed to the complainant that the T.V. had become dead and it had gone beyond the repairs because of non availability of the spare parts.    The spare parts are worn out are not available.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of 2^nd opposite party filed and no documents was marked on  the side of the  opposite parties.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite parties have committed  deficiency of

 service as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

6.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party and the proof affidavit filed by complainant and the 2^nd opposite party  and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 filed on the side of the complainant and considered the both side arguments.

7.     There is no dispute between the parties that on the complaint made by the complainant on 01.08.2014 the 2^nd opposite party has sent its service engineer to the complainant residence and attended the repair work of the old Samsung colour TV of the complainant and complainant has paid a sum of Rs.562/- as labour charge as per the receipt Ex.A1. 

8.     Whereas the complainant has raised grievance that after the said repair attended by 2^nd opposite party service engineer on 02.08.2014 again the said TV was found not properly functioning in the end of the same month.  When the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for repair the 2^nd opposite party has not attended the repair work saying that said TV was old one and for repair, it requires spare parts, whereas  the spare parts of the said TV were not been manufactured at present as such the said repair work could not be attended.  The email, dated 30.09.2014 sent by the 2^nd  opposite party to that effect is also filed as Ex.A2.  However complainant raised grievance that the 2^nd opposite party company who is the manufacturer of the said TV and the 1^st opposite party who is the authorized service centre is liable to provide necessary spare parts, contrary to this denial to attend the repair work on the ground of non availability of spare parts by the opposite parties is amounts to deficiency of service and filed the complaint  to replace the TV by new one and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as against the opposite parties.

9.     Whereas in this proceedings the 1^st opposite party has remained exparte the 2^nd opposite party is contesting the case and contended that the said TV was an old model and not at all presently manufactured and marketed in the market, since the said TV was more than 7 years old at the time of attending repair work by the 2^nd opposite party’s service engineer, some soldering  work has been done and the said TV was made functioning and also collected Rs.562/- as labour charge as per receipt Ex.A1.  When the complainant has again made complaint of repair of the said TV on the basis of the previous attendance of repair work, the said service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party has explained to the complainant that the repair was due to failure of spare parts and require replacement of spare parts which is not possible since the spare parts are not manufactured in the company and not available in the market, as the  said TV was very old model to that effect the 2^nd opposite party has also sent the email letter to the complainant which is filed as Ex.A2 by the complainant itself.

10.    There is no dispute that as contended by the 2^nd opposite party the said TV is old one purchased by the complainant more than seven years back at the relevant time of repair work attended by its service engineer i.e on 02.08.2014.  Therefore, though the 2^nd opposite party has attended the repair work through its service engineer on 02.08.2014 as mentioned by 2^nd opposite party, in the written version that the service engineer has repaired the said TV by doing some soldering work  and the said TV was made functioning and collected Rs.562/- as labour charge as per the receipt Ex.A1, in the said receipt itself under the terms and conditions it is mentioned “The customers should be satisfied with the repairs done and the performance of the product before making payment”  In the said receipt complainant has signed as customer.  Therefore as contended by the 2^nd opposite party on 02.08.2014 the repair work attended by the 2^nd opposite party’s service engineer was to the satisfaction to the complainant and the said TV was made functioning properly.  Contrary to this the complainant allegations that on the said repair work the service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party was not properly attended and the said TV was again became not functioning in the end of the August 2014 in continuation of the previous repair  is not acceptable.   Further, the refusal of the 2^nd opposite party to attend repair work again on the subsequent complaint made by the complainant by saying that the repair of the TV requires spare parts replacement and the spare parts are not been manufactured and available in the market, as such, it could not be attended are also acceptable.  Contrary to this, the complainant’s contention that the 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the said TV and the 1^st opposite party being its authorized service agent are not manufacturing and not made available of the said spare parts in the market and refusing to attend the repair of the said TV are also deficiency of service on their part are all not acceptable. 

11.    Therefore we are of the considered view that as contended by the 2^nd opposite party, on the receipt of complaint they have attended through their service engineer the repair work of the old TV of the complainant on 02.08.2014 and complainant has also paid Rs.562/- as labour charges as per Ex.A1.   For the alleged non functioning of the said TV again during the month of September, it cannot be said  due to defect in attending the repair work by the service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party on 02.08.2014 as there is no evidence for the same on the side of the complainant.  The contention of the 2^nd opposite party that subsequent repair work could not be attended due to non availability of required spare parts are all acceptable.  

12.    Therefore as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the allegation of deficiency of service attributed by the complainant against the opposite parties in the complaint are not proved, as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint against the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances, both the parties are to bear their own costs.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  1^st   day  of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                     PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-  1.8.2014       - Copy of Receipt.

Ex.A2- 30.9.2014      - Copy of email.

Ex.A3- 13.10.2014     - Copy of notice to opposite parties.

Ex.A4-                    -        - Copy of Acknowledgment card.

Ex.A5-                    -        - Copy of postal service of 2^nd opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents: - 

 

.. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                                                                                                  PRESIDENT.