IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the  28^th day of February, 2023

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 26/2022 (filed on 08-02-2022)

Petitioner                                  :         Manoj T.M.

                                                          Thadathil House,

                                                          Vazhoor P.O.

                                                          First Mile – 686504

                                                          Kottayam

                                                                         Vs.

Opposite parties                       :    (1) White Mart,

                                                          P And A Associates,

                                                          Anickadu P.O.

                                                          Pallickathodu,

                                                          Kottayam – 686503

   (2)  Samsung India Pvt. ltd.

                                                          20^th to 24^th floor,

                                                          Two Center Horizon,

                                                          Gulf Course Road Sector – 43

                                                          DLFPH-V Gurgaon,

                                                          122202 Haryana.

                                                          (Adv. Manu J. Varappally)

O  R  D  E  R

Smt. Bindhu R. Member

       Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

      The complainant purchased a Television worth Rs.41,500/- from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 30-09-2020 with 3 years warranty.  But the said TV started showing complaints within the 1^st year itself and the panel of the TV had to be replaced.  When the defect repeated, the opposite parties said that it was the complaint of the board and the same could be replaced.  After one month, it was informed from the service center that the board of the TV was not available and they would refund the amount by way of gift voucher.  Accordingly the service people called the complainant and informed that the gift voucher was of Rs.34,400/- and it could be used only for the purchase of Samsung products.  So the complainant did not accept the offer.  The act of the opposite party in not rectifying the defect or replace the TV is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which has to be compensated.  Hence this case.

          Upon notice, 2^nd opposite party appeared and filed version.  Though the 1^st opposite party was given ample opportunity for filing version, they did not care to appear or file version. Hence opposite party 1 was set exparte.

          One Mr. Sandeep Sahijwani, the authorized person of 2^nd opposite party filed version contenting that when the defect was informed the service engineer inspected the said television and informed the complainant that PCB and the IP board of the said unit was damaged and since the unit was within the warranty the service center out of goodwill gesture and also due to non availability of parts at the time of concern being raised company offered a refund coupon of Rs.34,445/- on the television.  But the same was denied by the complainant and he demanded commercial solution for the same.  Defect to the said TV could occur due to several reasons like power related issues, mishandling or any other reasons.  Several times the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party intimated the complainant about the availability of the spare parts but complainant refused to repair the said unit and filed the present complaint.  There is no expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect of the TV and hence no replacement or refund can be made.  The complainant denied the offer of the service centre to give a coupon worth Rs.34,445/ and this shows that there was no manufacturing defect within the warranty period.  The opposite parties had acted as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and in compliance with law.  The 2^nd opposite party is willing to carry the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual.  The 2^nd opposite party has stated that the company is ready and willing to provide replacement on the part basis availability.  The complainant has not produced any report of an expert to prove manufacturing defect.  The complaint is filed on an experiment basis and the complainant has not approached the commission with clean hands.   There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party or their officials.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Towards the evidence part, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A3.  The 2^nd opposite party also filed proof affidavit along with Ext.B1 and B2.

          On the basis of pleadings and evidence on record, we would like to frame following issues.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs?

Issue No.1 and 2

The case of the complainant is that he has purchased TV from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 30-09-2020.  When the TV showed defects within the 1^st year upon the complaint, the authorized service centre of the 2^nd opposite party replaced the panel of the TV for 2 times.  Again when the defect repeated they informed that complaint was to the board and it was not available and so the defect could not be rectified.  Instead they offered a gift voucher of Rs.34,400/ to purchase Samsung products, which was refused by the complainant.

The allegation in the complaint is that the denial of repair due to non-availability of spare parts by the opposite party is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The 2^nd opposite party being the manufacturer of the impuned TV is liable to assure the availability of spare parts of its products at least for 2 years as per the law. 

Ext.B2 is issued by the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party, it is the same as that of Ext.A3 customer service record card which is supposed to have recorded the defect of product when produced, the report of the repair work done by the service centre along with the details of the complaint and date.  Ext.B2 shows the complaint to the panel of the TV only.  No details regarding repair work on the last time is produced, the 2^nd opposite party has admitted in the version and the proof affidavit that on the 3^rd occasion, the defect was caused to the board of the TV which could not have been rectified due to the non-availability of the same.  Though the 2^nd opposite party contented that they had informed the complainant several time abouts the availability of the board, he did not turned up, they have not produced any documents to prove this. 

As per Section 2(36) (4) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, product manufacturer means “a person who makes a product and sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains such product or is otherwise involved in placing such product for commercial purpose”

So the manufacturer has an inherent liability to give proper assistance to the use of its product by a consumer uninterruptedly at least for the period of warranty.  The manufacturer is liable to ensure the availability of the spare parts in the market from 2 years from the date of issuance of the product to the market.  The consumer cannot suffer due to the lack of responsibility of the manufacturer to retain the necessary spare parts of its own products in the market.

          In the case on hand also we find that the 2^nd opposite party failed to ensure the spare parts available in the market.  Again the issuance of the gift voucher to its consumer on an incident of the happening of a defect to the company’s product due to some reasons unknown to the consumer, which can be used only for the purchase of its own products is also found to be an unfair trade practice.  Though it seems to be a gesture of fair practice from the part of the opposite party it is a tactics to compel the consumer to buy its own product again.  This cannot be considered as an act of compensation from the part of the opposite party.  Thus this practice is also is a clear case of unfair trade practice. 

So from the above discussion, we find that   1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defects of the TV and unfair trade practice by not assuring the spare parts availability offering a gift voucher with a malafide intention.  Hence the complaint is allowed and

1. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.41,500/- to the complainant with interest @9% from 05-08-2021 till realization.
2. Then opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of February, 2022

Smt. Bindhu R. Member                  Sd/-

Sri. Manulal V.S. President             Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                  Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked from the side of complainant

A1 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.30-09-2020

A2 – Copy of medical certificate dtd.25-05-98 issued by Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam

A3- Copy of customer service record card

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

B1 – Copy of power of attorney

B2 – Copy of customer service record card

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                         Assistant Registrar