Consumer Forum Slaps a fine of Rs 10,000/- to Consumer


Court :
District Consumer Forum Warangal - Telangana State

Brief :
On 30/10/2017 The District Consumer Forum Warangal passed an interesting judgment in the case CC/4/2017 (Ravichandra. D Vs Samsung Electronics). The DCF Warangal passed the above Judgment directing the Complainant (i.e) Consumer to pay Rs10,000/- to the Opposite party. Coming to the Facts of the case Complainant Ravichandra. D filed above consumer complaint in the DCF Warangal in December 2016 for the defective television sold by Samsung. The District Consumer Forum passed this sensational judgment directing a consumer who received a defective television from big company Samsung to pay Rs 10,000/- to company to get a further replacement of television. The judgment of District forum alerts all the consumers that if a company sold a defective item then the Item should be not used and should be immediately handover to the company service centre and wait for their response. If they use the defective unit then they may be punished by consumer forums with a huge penalty.

Citation :
Ravi Chandra.D, S/o.Eshwar D, Age:21 years, Occu:Student, R/o.H.No.5-9-95, Kishanpura, Hanamkonda, Warangal District -506 001. …Complainant AND Sumsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 202, Rep.by its Managing Director and Country Head. … Opposite party.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL

Present: Sri G.Nagaraju, M.A.L.L.B., President.
Sri Patel Praveen Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., Male Member.
And
Smt.S.B.Bhargavi, B.A., LL.M., Member.
Monday, the 30th day of October, 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.04/2017
Date of filing : 17-12-2016 Date of Disposal: 30-10-2017

Between:

Ravi Chandra.D, S/o.Eshwar D,
Age:21 years, Occu:Student,
R/o.H.No.5-9-95, Kishanpura, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District -506 001. …Complainant
AND
Sumsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,
20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road,
Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 202,
Rep.by its Managing Director and Country Head.
… Opposite party.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 26-10-2017, in the presence of Sri D.Ravi Chandra (Inperson) and Sri P.Bhaskar and Sri R.Ananda Rao, Advocates for Opposite Party and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following order.

ORDER

Sri G.Nagaraju, President.

1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.62,720/- paid for Television to the complainant along with interest @36% p.a. from 23-06-2016 till the realization, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation of mental agony and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses and costs.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Samsung LED Television through Online with Model No.UA48J5300ARLXL bearing serial number 0A3B3CPCG700217W from opposite party on 20-06-2016 by paying Rs.62,720/-. The opposite party issued warranty for one year. On 23-06-2016 when the TV was switched on for the first time the complainant found that the TV was defective i.e, 10-15 black patches on the screen with 5-8 blue patches in the middle of the screen. Immediately on the same day the complainant raised complaint with customer support of opposite party and his complaint numbered as 4216479629 and assured to solve the problem within 24 hours. On 24-06-2016 Mr.Raheem, Service Engineer of opposite party inspected the TV and confirmed that it is a major manufacturing defect and assured that replacement/refund of the product value will be done within 15 days. After two days the complainant received call from opposite party and informed that the replacement/refund will be processed. But the opposite party failed to replace the TV or refund the amount. On 24-08-2016 the local Samsung Service Centre personnel brought another TV and on seeing it was in “open” condition without any company seal, as such the complainant rejected the said TV. The opposite party failed to replace the TV or refund the amount paid by the complainant. Vexed with the attitude of opposite party, the complainant got issued notice on 12-09-2016 for which the opposite party did not take any action. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint.

3. The Opposite Party filed the Written Version stating that the complainant purchased Samsung LED Television online on 23-06-2016 and the same was delivered in a defective condition which is called as defective on arrival, the claim which can be considered upto 30 days from the date of purchase. The authorized service centre having inspected the set processed the file for replacement with a new television. Accordingly on obtaining the approval from the concerned competent authority, the service centre tried to deliver the new piece. The complainant refused to receive the same on false and frivolous grounds stating that there is no seal and the product is in open condition which is false. When the complainant refused to receive the replacement with new television, the case was processed for the refund of the amount. Accordingly a DD was sent to the authorized service centre to be handed over to the complainant for which the complainant is ready to receive but not willing to return the defective unit until the amount is credited to his account which is not as per the company’s policy. The above being the true and correct facts the opposite party is willing to refund the money even today. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The Parties filed their respective proof Affidavits. The Complainant got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and the Opposite Party not filed any documents.

5. The following points are emerged for consideration based on rival pleadings on record?

1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3) If so, to what relief.

6. The undisputed facts are that the complainant purchased LED TV on 20-06-2016 with Model No. UA48J5300ARLXL for Rs.62,720/- and same was not denied by the opposite party and when the piece was switched on 23-06-2016 there were about 10 to 15 black patches and 5 to 8 blue patches in the middle of the screen were appeared and same was attended by the Service Engineer and offered to replace the same with a new one. When the opposite party offered to deliver the same the complainant alleged to have refused to receive the same by stating that it was without Company seal and already used in the service centre and accordingly the complainant had refused. The opposite party even offered D.D. to the complainant and he is ready to receive the same but not willing to return the defective unit until the amount is credited to his account and the same is admitted by the opposite party.

7. During the course of arguments, when this forum questioned the complainant he stated that “the piece was kept idle and not used even till today” which was not pleaded either in the complaint or in his Affidavit or in his Written Arguments and also the complainant failed to return the defective piece under protest directly to the company or failed to seek the help of the forum for directions to hand over the defective piece to the opposite party and none of the steps were taken by the complainant by which an adverse inference can be drawn that though there are patches to same piece must have been used by the complainant as no prudent man would retain the piece with manufacturing defect for such long time. The admissions and pleadings by the opposite party reveal that though the opposite party is ready to hand over new piece and same is rejected by the complainant on the ground that the seal is not there and TV is used in authorized service centre and the complainant was not intending to return the defective unit till DD is credited to his account.

8. For the foregoing reasons no deficiency of service can be attributed to the opposite party. But keeping in view of the above circumstances the complaint is partly allowed with the following directions and to comply the same within one month by both the parties. They can take help of the forum to implement the same by giving advance notices to each other in advance.

In the result this complaint is partly allowed with following directions to comply within one month.

1) The opposite party is hereby directed to replace with New LED TV Samsung Model UA 48J5300ARLXL (with same specifications).

2) The complainant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand only) to the opposite party for retaining defective piece stating that it was not “used for one year” though kept idle as the complainant failed to take steps to return the piece to the opposite party.

3) No order as to costs.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 30th day of October, 2017).

MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party Affidavit of complainant filed. Affidavit of Opposite Party filed

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

1. Ex.A-1 is the Xerox copy of Invoice dated 20-06-2016.
2. Ex.A-2 is the Xerox copy of Warranty issued by the opposite party.
3. Ex.A-3 is the complaint acknowledgment from the opposite party.
4. Ex.A-4 is the Notice issued to the opposite party dated 12-09-2016 through Mail.
5. Ex.A-5 is the reply from the opposite party dated 12-09-2016 through Mail.
6. Ex.A-6 is the office copy of notice issued to the opposite party dated 12-09-2016.
7. Ex.A-7 is the postal receipt.

 

Ravi
on 15 November 2017
Published in Others
Views : 410


 Recent Comments

Total: 6







×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu