Final Order1 Final Order2 Complaint Case No. CC/68/2015 1. Balamukundan S/o Sampath No.18,2 Floor, Third Cross street, elango Nagar, Puducherry. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s Darling Digital world (P) Ltd and one others No.80, Kamaraj Street,Puducherry. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. A.ASOKAN PRESIDENT MR. V.V. STEEPHEN MEMBER D. KAVITHA MEMBER For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 02 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY C.C.No.68/2015 Dated this the 2nd day of January 2018 (Date of Institution:08.12.2015) Balamukundan, son of Sampath No.18, 2nd Floor, Third Cross Street Elango Nagar, Puducherry. ? Complainant Vs 1. M/s Darling Digital World (P) Ltd., 80, Kamaraj Salai Pondicherry. 2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, Tower C Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43 Golf Course Road, Gurgaon ? 122 002, Haryana ? Opposite parties BEFORE: THIRU. A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT THIRU V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., MEMBER TMT. D. KAVITHA, B.A., LL.B., MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Thiru H.D. Kumaravelu, Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY : Thiru. M.V. Ramachandiran Murthy, Advocate for OP1 Thiru S. Vimal, Advocate for OP2 O R D E R (By Thiru. A. ASOKAN, President) This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to return back the amount of cost of Rs.51,000/- received from the complainant for replace the defective Samsung LED Television set sold to him with a brand new Samsung LED Television Set; to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental and physical torture, harassment and discomfort inflicted to the family due to the poor service meted on the complainant by opposite parties act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in selling a defective Television set and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant has purchased a Samsung LED Television, model 40J5300, from the first opposite party on 30.04.2015 for Rs.51,000/-. At the time of purchase, the Samsung Executive stated that the above said Television has a very good picture and sound quality and is more user friendly. The complainant stated that after six months of purchase, the television became dysfunctional and the reason for the same was due to panel Board problem. A complaint was first registered by the complainant on 01.10.2015, since there was no reply for the complaint even after one week, the wife of the complainant made calls directly to the Service Centre and a Service Engineer visited the complainant's house and inspected the television. He found the problem was with the Panel Board and suggested for full replacement. The complainant agreed for replacement and the Service Engineer also placed order for replacement. However, the Samsung company did not come forward to replace with a new television set even after two months, the complainant suffered, serious mental and monitory loss. The complainant further stated that in view of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, he is not interested for the replacement and hence, wanted the amount to be refunded with compensation. Hence, this complaint. 3. The OP1 though chosen to appearing through an Advocate, they have not filed any reply version. The OP2 alone filed reply version which discloses the following: The 2nd opposite party denied the averment that the Television set purchased by the complainant had become dysfunctional and despite giving complainant there was no response from the 2nd opposite party. This opposite party stated that immediately on giving the complaint the Service Engineer of the opposite party has attended the service call without any delay. The 2nd opposite party further denied that after attending the service call the Service Engineer had informed the complainant that the entire television set has to be replaced as the television set cannot be rectified. This opposite party stated that after getting the service call form the complainant the Service Engineer had attended the call and the complainant was insisting on the replacement of the television set and did not allow the Service Engineer to inspect the television set to find out the fault if any in the television set. Further, at no point of time the Service Engineer informed the complainant that entire television set will get replaced and he will place replacement request with the second opposite party. This opposite party stated that as per the terms of the warranty, in case of any defect in the television set the damaged part alone would be replaced and at no point of time the entire television set will get replaced. In the present case even as per the contention of the complainant there was a problem in the panel board of television set and in the event of any defect in the panel board the panel board alone could be rectified. However in the present case the complainant did not allow the service engineer to attend the service call to find out the defect, if any, in the television set. Therefore the contention of the complainant that the opposite party had agreed for replacement of the television set is denied as false. The complainant is not entitled for any relief for the replacement of the television set, therefore the complainant is no entitled for the refund of the cost of the television set as claimed by the complainant. Further the complainant has not established the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence, he is not entitled for any compensation. There is no cause of action arises on the bare reading of the complaint as against the opposite parties and therefore the above complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the side of complainant, the complainant Balamukundan was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked through him. One C. Anand, Vocational Instructor of Government ITI for Women was examined as Court Witness and marked Ex.X1 through him. On the side of opposite parties, there was no evidence adduced and no documents were marked. 5. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the complainant is a Consumer? Whether the OPs have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant? Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? 6. POINT No.1 : That on 30.04.2015 the complainant purchased a Samsung LED Television bearing model 40J5300 for Rs.51,000/- from the first opposite party vide Ex.C1 the sale invoice No. 1501300327 dated 30.04.2015. The said TV was manufactured by OP2. Hence, the complainant is construed as a Consumer. This point is answered accordingly. 7. POINT No.2: The complainant alleged that he purchased 40J5300 model Samsung LED Television for Rs.51,000/- from the first opposite party on 30.04.2015 vide Ex.C1 and the installation was done on the same day. After six months and within the period of warranty, the television set got repaired and on the complaint lodged by the complainant vide Ex.C2, a Service Engineer from OPs had visited the house of complainant and inspected the television set and found defects in the Panel Board. The complainant further alleged that the Service Engineer had placed a replacement order with the OP2 since the entire set is to be replaced. Ex.C3 is the warranty card. But even after lapse of two months, the OP2 did not come forward to replace the television set which lead the complainant to have mental torture and monetary loss. Hence, the complainant prayed for refund of entire cost of television set. 8. On the other hand, the second opposite party contented that their Service Engineer never said that the entire television set is to be replaced. According to the terms of warranty, if any parts of the television set got repaired, they will change the said part only and not the entire television set. Further contended that it is the complainant who have not allowed the Service Engineer of the OP2 to find out the defects and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. 9. We have carefully perused the complaint, reply versions of OP2, evidence of complainant and the court witness and the documents available on record. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of television set by the complainant from the OP1 shop and manufactured by OP2. The only allegation of the complainant is that since the main board which is a vital part to an Electronic goods got repaired within a short span of time, the complainant does not require the replacement of television set but claims for the refund of the amount paid for the purchase of T.V. On the otherhand, the OP2, though not disputed the problem of the main board, as per terms of warranty, they will be able to change the defective parts only and not refund the amount or replace the entire product. 10. The OP1 did not come forward to contest the complaint. The OP2 admitted for replacement of defective parts as per the terms in the warranty. According to the complaint, the complainant had used the television for about five months only. Further, the OP2 has not raised any allegation of mishandling of Television set by the complainant. The television set is also under warranty period. On perusal of Ex.C3, clause 8 states that "The company's obligation under this warranty shall be limited to repair or providing replacement of part/s only?.". But, on perusal of complaint as well as the evidence of CW1, this Forum found that the complaint was lodged on 01.10.2015. Further, according to the complainant, there was no immediate response from the opposite parties and when the Service Engineer of opposite parties who visited the complainant's house after seven days has stated that the main board got repaired and the entire set has to be replaced. Though the complainant has not produced any evidence to establish the above version, the opposite parties did not come forward to let in evidence to rebute the above said statement. Hence, this Forum taken adverse inference and considered the statement of the complainant. 11. Further, in order to come to a conclusion, this Forum suo moto appointed an Expert who inspected the television set and submitted his report stating that The defect in the television set was not caused by misuse or mishandling by the operator. The problem in the television set was caused due to some inherent defect in the Main Panel Board. Hence, the above version of Expert correlate the allegation of the complainant. 12. The Expert was also examined as a court witness and during his cross examination has stated that I did not find any problem in power supply to the board but found symptoms that the processor board is not function as there is no audio and video output. The reason for non function of processor board can be due to ESD (Erasable discharge), Software issues, crystal issue, and then EPROM (Erasable Programmable Random only Memory) the above said investigation have not done by me due to unavailability of circuits details and related special measuring instruments". The Expert also established that the defect in the television is due to the problem in the Main Panel Board. This Forum found that the main panel board problem is the main cause for the defect in the T.V. set. The very purpose for which the T.V. purchased by the complainant is defeated and it caused mental agony to the complainant. 13. At this juncture, the only question that has to be decided is whether the complainant is entitled for getting back the money which he spent for purchase of the alleged television set as prayed for. 14. From the facts narrated above and from the independent Technical Expert's opinion, this Forum observe that the problem in the main board in an electronic goods is a manufacturing defect and this Forum comes to a conclusion that the opposite parties not only have committed deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice which subjected the complainant to undergo mental agony and monetary loss and hence, it is held that the complainant is entitled to get back the money which was paid by the complainant for the purchase of the Television set and for compensation. 15. POINT No.3: In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are jointly and severally directed 1) to return back the amount of Rs.51,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of defective Samsung LED Television Set and get back the television set from this Forum after compliance of this order; 2) to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the loss, hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of OPs. 3) to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this proceedings. Dated this the 2nd day of January 2018. ASOKAN) PRESIDENT (V.V. STEEPHEN) MEMBER (D. KAVITHA) MEMBER COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS: CW1 05.05.2016 Balamukundan OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS: NIL COURT WITNESS: 02.11.2017 C. Anand, Vocational Instructor, COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS : Ex.C1 30.04..2015 Sales Invoice of OP1 Ex.C2 01.10.2015 Photocopy of complaint logged by complainant Ex.C3 30.04.2015 Photocopy of Warranty card Ex.X1 15.09.2017 Inspection Report of Samsung LED Television OPPOSITE PARTYS' EXHIBITS: NIL LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL ASOKAN) PRESIDENT (V.V. STEEPHEN) MEMBER (D. KAVITHA) MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. A.ASOKAN] PRESIDENT [ MR. V.V. STEEPHEN] MEMBER [ D. KAVITHA] MEMBER