Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/37/2014

P.Sukumar, S/o. P. Subramanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Veejay Enterprises, World of Electronics, Represented by its proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

B.Mallikarjuna Rao.

01 Aug 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:01.08.2014

Order Date: 01.08.2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

SATURDAY THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.37/2014

 

Between

 

P.Sukumar,

S/o. P.Subramanyam,

D.No.14-70/4, L.B.Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         Veejay Enterprises,

            World of Electronics,

            G.Car Street,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.

 

2.         Gopi Krishna Electronics,

            D.No.20-3-25/A8, Near Municipal Park,

            Tirumala Bye-pass Road,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.

 

3.         Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

            Plot No.P-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,

            Phase-II, Sunguvarchatram post,

            Kanchipuram District,

            Tamilnadu – 602 106.

 

4.         Samsung Customer Service,

            2^nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square,

            Sector-43, Golf Course Road,

            Gurgaon,

            Haryana – 122 002.                                                             …  Opposite parties..

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 14.07.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Mallikarjuna Rao, counsel for the complainant, and opposite party No.1 remained exparte, and Sri.P.Anand, counsel for the opposite party No.2, and Sri.K.Suresh, counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs against the opposite parties 1 to 4, 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 4 to replace the LED TV with new one, 2) to direct the opposite parties    1 to 4 to pay Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the litigation.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-   that the complainant purchased Samsung LED TV model No.22F5100, serial No.MQZJ3PAF101009 for Rs.14,500/- from opposite party No.1 under invoice No.WOE—2206 on 11.02.2014. Opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the said TV, opposite parties 2 and 4 are the Customer Service Centers of Samsung Company. Opposite party No.1 gave warranty for one year. T.V was installed by the technician of opposite party No.2. The complainant observed that there is defect in clarity, as the picture viewed as negative from all directions. When the defect is informed to opposite party No.1, he told the complainant to inform the same to opposite party No.2. The complainant informed the same problem to opposite party No.4 through phone and complaint is registered as No.8469174084 on 15.02.2014. On the same day, opposite party No.2 sent his technician to the house of complainant. He told that the TV should be viewed straight but not from left or right or up or down directions and went away without rectifying the defect. When again complained the problem to opposite party No.1, he did not care his complaint and the problem was not rectified till today. Since there is manufacturing defect, opposite party No.3 has to replace the TV and pay damages for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The authorized dealer and opposite parties 2 to 4 are giving evasive replies. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.1, remained exparte.

            4.  Opposite party No.2 filed written version denying the complaint allegations including the purchase of T.V by the complainant and further contending that the T.V is functioning properly and there is no manufacturing defect in it, as such question of suffering mental agony by the complainant does not arise. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prays Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            5.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 filed common written version admitting that the complainant has purchased the above described LED TV and further contended that the alleged defect when the complainant viewed T.V from right or left or up or down the said “LED TV clarity is viewed as negative” cannot be stated as a defect in the TV and stated that TVs are to be viewed only from the front side but not from the left or right or up or down side and it should be viewed straight. The same was informed to the complainant by the technician, who visited the house of complainant on 15.02.2014, on receipt of the complaint from the complainant. That the LED TV is working in proper condition even till today. There is no manufacturing defect in the TV and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The notice issued by the complainant will not create any cause of action and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  Complainant, opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.4 have filed their chief affidavits and written arguments respectively and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 for the complainant and no documents were marked for the opposite parties. Heard counsel for both parties.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i)  Whether the Samsung LED TV model No.22F5100, serial

                 No.MQZJ3PAF101009, suffers from any manufacturing defect and is it

                 liable to be replaced?    

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            8.  Point No.(i):-  opposite party No.2 in his written version and chief affidavit denied even the purchase of TV by the complainant and asked the complainant to took that contention to strict proof. In order to answer this denial by opposite party No.2, it is pertinent to refer Ex.A2 receipt bearing No.WOE-2206 issued by opposite party No.1 dt:11.02.2014 for Rs.14,500/- in favour of the complainant, wherein the description of the product is mentioned as LED 22F5100. Ex.A1 is the Samsung LED TV User Manual (including warrant card / safety notice), which discloses the model name LED 22F5100 and S.No.MQZJ3PAF101009, in Customer Details cum Warranty Card page. Exs.A1 and A2 coupled with the admissions in the written version and chief affidavit of opposite party No.4, it is proved that the complainant has purchased TV in question from opposite party No.1 on 11.02.2014.

            9.  Both the complainant and opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are with rival contentions. According to complainant the TV referred to above was not functioning from the day one of its purchase onwards. The defect was complained on 15.02.2014 i.e. 4^th day of purchase of TV. Opposite parties, since contending that the TV is functioning properly till today and no defects in the TV and it should be viewed only straight and not from any other directions, as such on 02.07.2015 the complainant is directed by this Forum to produce the TV in question before the Forum and opposite party is also directed to bring qualified technician to check the TV and its performance. Accordingly the complainant produced the TV on 14.07.2015 and opposite party No.2 has brought a qualified Service Engineer by name Murali. The said Service Engineer himself demonstrated the TV in the Forum in the presence of counsel for both parties and parties and observed that picture is viewed like a negative film, then the qualified Service Engineer Mr.Murali, told that “panel is defective” because of that only negative picture is displaying. In view of the said defect being pointed out by the qualified Service Engineer of opposite party No.2, it could be safely held that the TV is defective. When the panel defect is observed by the qualified Service Engineer, it is nothing but defect in the system of TV itself, which amounts to imperfection in the performance of the TV.

            10.  The word “defect” is defined in Section-2(1)(f) of the C.P.Act 1986 as follows:

“defect” means any fault, imperfection or short-coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or [under any contract, express or implied or] as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods”

        

            Here in this case, LED TV purchased by the complainant, panel is found to be defective by the qualified Service Engineer of opposite party No.2. Thus, there is fault and imperfection in displaying and also lack of quality in its performance. The defect was found in the TV on 4^th day of its purchase. The TV was purchased on 11.02.2014, defect was observed on 15.02.2014, notice given by the complainant on 21.02.2014. The complaint is filed on 01.08.2014, till 14.07.2015 the defect was not rectified by the opposite parties inspite of repeated requests and complaint in writing by the complainant, on the other hand, the opposite parties informed the complainant that the TV should be watched only by sitting straight to the TV. When the TV was displayed in the Forum, the picture was viewed as negative from any direction including when it was watched straight. Therefore, the TV is found to be defective in its manufacture and it is liable to be replaced by the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In this regard, we have to mention that the complainant has purchased the LED TV referred to above on 11.02.2014, defect was observed on 15.02.2014 itself and the same was communicated to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.4. Opposite party No.2 sent their technician, who checked the TV and said that the viewers have to view the TV by sitting opposite to it in straight direction and the picture will not be seen if it is viewed from left side, right side or from up or downwards and went away. Notice also given to the opposite parties on 21.02.2014. Finally, after waiting till August 2014, the complaint is filed on 01.08.2014. Even after the complaint is lodged against the opposite parties 1 to 4, the opposite parties could not rectify the defect. Finally, they put their contentions in their written versions stating that the TV is functioning perfectly and no defect was there in the TV as against the contention of complainant that the picture is being viewed like a negative film. On hearing the counsel for both parties, this Forum directed the complainant to produce the TV and also directed the opposite parties to produce their qualified Service Engineer, who can check-up the TV and its performance. Accordingly the TV was produced before this Forum on 14.07.2015 and a qualified Service Engineer by name Murali was also produced by the opposite parties, while it was demonstrating in the Forum in the presence of parties and counsel for both parties. It was observed by complainant, opposite parties and their Service Engineer that picture is viewed just like a negative film. When questioned about the defect, the Service Engineer produced by opposite party No.2 said that the panel was defect in the TV, as such their qualified Service Engineer himself stated that there is “panel defect in the TV in question” and it was not rectified so far. Thus it is found that there is defect in the TV and there is also deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for and accordingly this point is answered.

            12. Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2 and the performance of the TV observed by both parties and their respective counsel and the qualified Service Engineer by name Murali of opposite party No.2, it is found that the TV is defective and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4 as observed above and therefore the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part with the following directions. That opposite parties 1 to 4 are hereby jointly and severally liable for the defect in the TV and also for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4. Therefore, they are directed to replace the TV in question with new one with same specifications without collecting its cost again and opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties       1 to 4 and for the mental agony caused to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of the TV i.e. from 11.02.2014, till realization.       

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 1^st day of August, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                       

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1:   P. Sukumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1:  M.Rama Krishna (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-2:  Shriniwas Joshi (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Warranty card (Original) for the Model Name LED 22F5100. Dt: 11.02.2014.
	Receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 11.02.2014.
	Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 along with postal receipts. Dt: 21.02.2014.
	Settled reply issued by Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati with regard to the acknowledgements of opposite parties No’s. 1 and 2 and 4. Dt: 20.03.2014.
	Acknowledgement card of opposite party No.3. Dt: 25.02.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

  Copies to:-   1. The Complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties 1 to 4.