Rajinder Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Amritpaul

Samsung India Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Neena Rani Gupta
2. P.S. Dhanoa
3. Sh Sarat Chander


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER


Complainant. VERSUS
1.Sh.Amritpal S/o Sh.Laxmi Dass, resident of Bareta,
Proprietor M/s Laxmi Electronics, Branch Bahadarpur, Head office Bareta Mandi, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.The Managing Director, Samsung India Limited, SCO No.4,5, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. .....

Opposite Parties.


Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Zila Ram, resident of Bareta, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against Sh.Amritpal S/o Sh.Laxmi Dass, Proprietor M/s Laxmi Electronics, Branch Bahadarpur, and Managing Director, Samsung India Limited, Chandigarh, on the


Contd........2 :



2 : averments which may briefly be described as under:

2. That the complainant, has purchased a fridge, in the sum of Rs.15,990/- vide bill No.371 dated 26.8.2007, from the OP No.1. The fridge purchased by the complainant, neither freezed ice nor functioned properly from the very beginning, due to manufacturing defect therein. The complainant made attempts to get the defect removed from the OP No.1 once or twice but he failed to remove the defect, which was inherent. The complainant also asked him to replace the fridge, but he prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant even served notice dated 14.8.2008 upon the opposite parties, but no action, has been taken by them to remove the manufacturing defect in his fridge. The complainant, has suffered, because of the manufacturing defect in the fridge, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part for which direction be given to them, to replace the fridge or to refund the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18 percent with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and another sum of Rs.1500/- on account of amount incurred by the complainant for filing the complaint.



3. On being put to notice, the OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.9.2008. On the other hand, the OP No.2 filed written version resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that it is misconceived and not maintainable; that this Forum, has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, because as per the terms and conditions contained in the card of warranty, it is binding on the part of the parties and the courts in New Delhi, has exclusive jurisdiction over the matters covered by supply of products manufactured by the answering opposite party; that there is no defect in the fridge purchased by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party; that the complainant has misrepresented the facts before the Forum which is abuse of process of law and misuse of the


Contd........3 :


3 : provisions of the Act; that complainant, has no locus standi, to file the complaint and, has not served notice upon the opposite parties before filing the complaint, which has been filed just to harass the answering opposite party; that answering opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant due to any loss suffered by him especially when he has failed to proof loss or injury is a sine qua non for the award of compensation. On merits, it is not denied that the complainant, has purchased a fridge manufactured by OP No.2, from OP No.1, but it is submitted that he be put to strict proof. However, it is denied that fridge purchased by the complainant started giving troubles from the very beginning or did not function properly. It is submitted that the products manufactured by OP No.2 are put to extensive quality control and checks before they are sold in the market, as such, there is no question of development of any defect therein. The complainant, has neither approached nor filed any complaint before the answering opposite party, so far as any defect in his fridge, is concerned. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs.



4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, learned counsel for the complainant furnished his affidavit Ext.C-1 and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-6 and closed evidence on his behalf. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party No.2 tendered in evidence copies of documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-3 and closed evidence.


5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the complainant alone, with his kind assistance. 6. Before the matter could be disposed of on merits, after hearing the arguments, the parties entered into compromise, in terms of which Sh. P.K.Sapolia, Advocate, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, suffered statement on 29.4.2009, to the effect that his client undertakes to remove the defect in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant through

Contd........4 :


4 : the Opposite Party No.1 upto 20.05.2009 and in case the said defect is not removed, by the date given, then his refrigerator, may be replaced with a new refrigerator, of the same description by his client through the Opposite Party No.1, who is his dealer. Thereafter, Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, made a statement that the matter be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Since the parties have affected compromise, as stated above, the complaint stands disposed of. However, the Opposite Party No.2, shall remain bound by the statement, suffered by his counsel, in terms of compromise and shall replace the refrigerator purchased by the complainant, with a new refrigerator of same description, in case defect therein, is not removed, by the stipulated date, subject to deposit of refrigerator purchased by him in his pososession.

Sri S.Srinivas Rao,

@ Kasargod Chinna,

S/o. S.Sheshagiri Rao,

Aged 51 years,

R/o. “Padmagiri” Karandekadu,

Kasargod District. …….. COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Varma Agencies,

Samsung Authorized Service Center,

No.16-9-536,

Platinum Point,

Opposite Platinum Theatre,

Falnir Main Road,

MANGALORE-575 002.



It is submitted that, the Opposite Party is the Service Center of Samsung Company products. On 10.7.2008 the Complainant has entrusted the repair work of his Samsung Mobil Set bearing No.SGHX 480 to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has issued a work order dated 10.7.2008.

It is alleged that, the Opposite Party made the Complainant to believe that the said Mobile set is having mechanical problems i.e. MICH problem and the same is borneout by the work order and the Opposite Party assured the Complainant that he would repair the said Mobile Set within two days. But the Opposite Party did not keep up his words and the Complainant was made to approach the Opposite Party several times. The Complainant was traveling from Kasaragod to Mangalore with a hope that his mobile set would be repaired and kept ready by the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party not bothered to repair the same and the Complainant traveled 7 to 8 times till this date, Opposite Party failed to returned the said Mobile Set till this date as stated above which amounts to deficiency in service.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid deficiency, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 18.8.2008 despite of that the Opposite Party is not bothered to comply the same and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to repair and redeliver the aforesaid Samsung mobile set of the Complainant and also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest at 12% p.a. and further cost of the proceedings.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. The same was returned as left and thereafter the Complainant taken notice by paper publication in Vijaya Kirana Daily News Paper. The said notice was served to the Opposite Party by paper publication, despite of serving notice Opposite Party not appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party in this case.


3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint Sri S.Srinivas Rao alias Kasargod Chinna (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and Ex C1 to C4 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party placed exparte led no evidence.

We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Affirmative

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS

5. Points No. (i) to (iii):

In the present case despite of taking paper publication against the Opposite Party, Opposite Party not bothered to come on record and contradict the evidence of the Complainant. The Complainant herein filed Ex.C1 to C4 along with affidavit. On careful scrutiny of the documents produced before the Fora the Ex.C1 is a Work Order issued by Verma Agencies, Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Mangalore i.e. Opposite Party herein, it is proved that on 10.7.2008 the Samsung model handset given by the Complainant with the problem of MICH and the same has been received by the personnel of the Samsung Authorized Service Centre. The Ex.C2 is the legal notice dated 18.8.2008 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party clearly reveals that the Opposite Party despite of taking handset for repair not bothered to repair the handset till this date. Further we have noted that the Complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Party as per Ex.C2. The Ex.C4 is the postal acknowledgement proved that the legal notice issued by the Complainant was duly served to the Opposite Party.

The Opposite Party being a authorized service centre, the Complainant being a purchaser of the Samsung Mobile Handset, it is the obligation on the part of the every Authorized Samsung Service Centre to repair the handset given by the Samsung customer within reasonable time. In the instant case, it could be seen that the Complainant is a holder of Samsung Mobile handset and the same has been delivered to the Authorized Service Centre i.e. Opposite Party for repair on 10.7.2008 but till this date the Opposite Party not bother to repair the handset and redeliver to the Complainant. Atleast after the receipt of the version notice the Opposite Party ought to have returned the handset to the Complainant to calling upon him to receive the same.

We have noted that no such attempt has been made by the Opposite Party in the given case. On over all consideration of the facts involved in the present case it is proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service by not repairing the handset till this date. Under the above circumstances, we hereby direct the Opposite Party to repair the hand set free of cost immediately and redeliver the aforesaid handset to the Complainant without any further delay. And also to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience and further Rs.1,000/- awarded towards the cost of the litigation expenses.

However, the interest as well as compensation both cannot be allowed the interest is always inclusive of compensation. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.



6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to repair the hand set free of cost immediately and redeliver the aforesaid handset to the Complainant without any further delay. And further pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and cost of the litigations expenses.

Mohan Bharti son of Shri Sukh Ram, resident of House No.1658 street no.2, New Prem Nagar, Near PAU, Ludhiana.

Versus

1- M/s.Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, with its Head Office at 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2- M/s.Samsung India electronics Private Limited, Regional Office at SCO 5, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh, through its Area Sales Manager/Regional Head.

3- M/s. Navrang Electrovision, B-32-4813/3, Shingar Cinema Road, Adjoining Bobby Marriage Palace, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/partner.

4- Authorised service centre of M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, C.N.Tower, First Floor, Adjoining Preet Cinema, Opposite Chevron Hotel, Ludhiana, through its Manager/Incharge.
….Opposite parties.
O R D E R

Allegations of the complainant is that he purchased air conditioner (AC) from OP who promised additional gifts including a mobile set etc, but AC was dropped on 05.05.2009 without any gift. For number of days AC was not installed by OP. Such act of OP claimed deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

2. After going through allegations we find no substance in the complaint. There is no proof that any gift on purchase of AC was offered or promised by the OP to the complainant. In para 04, it is admitted by the complainant AC was installed, but his grievances is that it was not installed properly causing damage to his room.

3. Contention of complainant is that AC was never installed but this runs contra to his allegations in the complaint.

4. In these circumstances, we feel that complainant has not been able to make out any case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. Therefore we do not admit the complaint and the same is rejected.

Rajat Malhotra son of Sh.D.K.Malhotra, resident of H.No.7-G, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s.Navrang Electrovision, 4813/3, Adj. Bobby Marriage Palace, Shingar Cinema Road, Ludhiana.

2.M/s.Samsung, SCO 4&5 , First floor, Sec 8C, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

` ….Opposite parties

O R D E R

RAJESH KUMAR,MEMBER

In this complaint under section 12 of consumer protection act, 1986 the case of the complaint is that he had purchased a Split AC-1.5 AS 18xBTL alongwith Stabilizer 4 KVA from the OP1- M/s.Navrang Electrovision vide invoice no.A-5766 dated 09.06.2007, who is an authorized dealer for the OP2- M/s.Samsung. That within the warranty period there was leakage of water in the inner unit of the AC for which the complaint was made on the helpline phone number of OP no.2 i.e. 30308282 on 02/06/2008 for which a service request number 8407508304 was provided, but the complaint was not attended. Again, on 06.06.2008 a complaint was made, which was attended by the technician of the OP2 after repeated requests.

Inspite of all this, there was still a leakage in the AC and for which subsequent complaints were made on 11, 23, 26 of June, 2008 and finally on 4.07.2008 which were of no avail. Thus, the Ops have failed to rectify the faults and have refused to replace the same. That the complainant due to fear of short circuit and fire is not using the AC. That the act and conduct of Ops in not providing proper service to the complainant also tantamount to unfair trade practice, thereby causing a great mental agony and harassment to the complainant, for which the complainant hereby claims Rs.50000/- as compensation, besides this the complainant also claims Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses from the Ops.

2. OP did not contest the complaint despite service. Hence proceeded against exparte.

3. Through exparte evidence complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, also retail invoice Ex.C1 dated 09.06.2007 qua purchased a Split AC-1.5 AS 18xBTL alongwith Stabilizer 4 KVA from the OP1- M/s.Navrang Electrovision vide invoice no.A-5766 dated 09.06.2007, who is an authorized dealer for the OP2- M/s.Samsung for Rs.26200/- and Ex.C2 customer details cum warranty card therein recording warranty of Split AC-1.5 AS 18xBTL alongwith Stabilizer 4 KVA.

4. Complainant argued that he had purchased a Split AC-1.5 AS 18xBTL alongwith Stabilizer 4 KVA from the OP1- M/s.Navrang Electrovision vide invoice no.A-5766 dated 09.06.2007, who is an authorized dealer for the OP2- M/s.Samsung, with the warranty card Ex.C2, wherein AC warranty is 12 months and for the compressor 60 months. That within the warranty period there was leakage of water in the inner unit of the AC for which the complaint was made on the helpline phone number of OP no.2 i.e. 30308282 on 02/06/2008 for which a service request number 8407508304 was provided, but the complaint was not attended. Again, on 06.06.2008 a complaint was made, which was attended by the technician of the OP2 after repeated requests.

Inspite of all this, there was still a leakage persists in the AC and for which subsequent complaints were made on 11, 23, 26 of June, 2008 and finally on 4.07.2008 which were of no avail. Thus, the Ops have failed to rectify the faults and have refused to replace the AC. That the complainant due to fear of short circuit and fire is not using the AC.

5. These sequence of events proved on record by the complainant prove that deficiency in service is on the part of the OP. AS OP charged full price of Split AC-1.5 AS 18xBTL alongwith Stabilizer 4 KVA from the complainant and become defective within warranty period further the complainant argued that due to fear of short circuit and fire not using the AC. This means OP failed provide proper service to the complainant and also tantamount to unfair trade practice, thereby causing a great mental agony to the complainant.

6. In these circumstances, it is evident, and for such deficiency in service, we allow this complaint, as a result direct the OP to rectify or clear the faults like leakage of water in the inner unit of the AC and repair also other parts of the AC if required to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order.

S/o Ahamad, : Complainant

R/at Fort Road,Kasaragod

(Adv.B.Ramakrishna Bhat,Kasaragod)

1.The Manager,

Indian Home Appliances,

Near C.T.M Petrol Bunk,M.G.Road,

Kasaragod

(Adv.Sukumaran,Kasaragod)

2. The Manager, : Opposite parties

Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd,

7&8th floor, IFCI Tower, 61,

Nehru Place, New Delhi.

(Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT



The grievance of the complainant Bappidi Mohammed is that he purchased one Samsung refrigerator manufactured by M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd for Rs.6978/- and one L.G.T.V set of 20” for Rs. 4978/- from the Ist opposite party Indian Home Appliances, Kasaragod as per bill dtd.10/8/07. The bill does not disclose the particulars of the capacity of the refrigerator. The bill showed collection of VAT @12.5%. The said articles were purchased during Onam festival season and at that time there was a gift offer available for the items purchased. As soon as the items were supplied to the complainant he opened the box and found that the T.V and its remote control which were not new and it was a used T.V and had scratches. The serial number of the T.V exhibited on the T.V and the number shown in the catalogue were entirely different.

The refrigerator purchased during Onam festival had a gift by way of gold coin kept in a coconut model. But this gift was suppressed by the Ist opposite party and not given to the complainant. It was also told that there is discount offer for the articles purchased. But those benefits were also not given to the complainant. On the other hand an exorbitant rate of tax @ 12.5% was collected other than the price of the article. The opposite parties thereby committed unfair trade practice and hence the complainant seeking an order against opposite parties to take back the articles and to repay Rs.13450/- with interest and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the damage sustained to the complainant.

2. Notices were issued to both opposite parties by registered post. Though opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version, 2nd opposite party did not care to appear before the Forum to contest the matter . Hence 2nd opposite party is set exparte.

According to 1st opposite party only the refrigerator manufactured by 2nd opposite party was having Onam festival offer and there was no offer for T.V. The T.V supplied was a new one and not a used one as alleged by the complainant. The basic rate of the refrigerator was Rs.7644/- and VAT was Rs.955/- therefore the total amount was Rs.8600/-. The dealer is entitled to collect VAT @ 12.5% as per the Act. The dealer is entitled to reduce the amount equivalent to the rate of gift if the purchaser is giving up the gift offer. The complainant gave up the gift offer and hence the Ist opposite party reduced the basic rate of the refrigerator from RS.7644/- to 6978/-. Hence the refrigerator was sold for the rate shown in Ext.A1. The VAT collected will goes to the government and not to Ist opposite party.



3. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim as PW1 and faced cross examination by the counsel for Ist opposite party. Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by Ist opposite party towards the purchase of Samsung refrigerator and L.G.C.TV. Ext.A2 is the copy of the lawyer notice issued to both opposite parties and Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment card relating to Ext.A3 notice. Ext.A4 is a copy of a vernacular local daily by name Karavel.

On the side of Ist opposite party, the sales man filed affidavit as DW1 and faced cross examination by the counsel for complainant. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked through DW1. Though an affidavit was filed by the Manager of the opposite party on an earlier occasion prior to the examination of DW1, he did not turn up for cross examination and withhold from the proceedings. Ext.B1 is the copy of the Samsung India Electronics Ltd. Refrigerator DC models Onam Price circular 2007.

As per Ext.B1 the basic price of the RA 18RVWR 180 ltr with stabilizer free Wine Red colour refrigerator that was sold to the complainant was Rs.7644.44 and VAT Rs.955.56. Thus the total distributors price was Rs.8600/- and the margin amount was Rs.533.33 with VAT on margin Rs.66.67. So the total MRP fixed was Rs.9200/-. Ext.B2 is the copy of the price list of LG colour T.V during Onam Festival Season 2007. As per which the distributors’ price during Onam festival season was Rs.5586/- and the MRP was 5950/-. Ext.B3 is a multi colour brochure by name ‘ Samsung AV Times’ Audio visual collection depicting an advertisement in vernacular language. That says SAMSUNG what is inside? ’ know on breaking’ purchase Samsung products, break the coconut. get gold upto 9 kg and a lot of other gifts.



4. The same advertisement is also put in Ext.A4, a local vernacular daily named ‘caravel’. That is put by another local dealer of 2nd opposite party namely ‘ Star systems and Services’. On a plain reading of the said advertisement it would appear that Samsung company is offering gifts of 9kg gold and a lot of other items as free gifts. The pictures on Ext.A4 shows that the gift of gold coin are offered to every one out of five customers apart from other prizes such as 26”LCD TVs. Home Theatre, Digital cameras, DVD player, Snack sets, Non stic sets and lunch boxes.



5. But according to DW1, the gift are not free and the price of each Samsung items sold during the Onam festival season includes the cost of gift also. According to DW1, the complainant told them that he did not want the offer of breaking of coconut and therefore as per Ext.A1, he had given discount for giving up the offer. According to DW1, the gold coins offered as prizes were weighing in 0.05 gm which would worth only Rs.500/-.



6. But as per the version, Ist opposite party had given reduction of Rs. 666/-(7644-6978 ) in the purchase price of the refrigerator to the complainant for abandoning the gift. Therefore according to Ist opposite party the cost of the gift would fetch Rs.666/- and whereas according to DW1 the value of the gold coin giving as gift worth only Rs.500/-.



7. If the contention of the Ist opposite party is accepted, then this complaint depicts one of the grossest unfair trade practice adopted by Samsung Electronics India Pvt.Ltd over their consumers of Kerala State during Onam festival season 2007.



8. To substantiate the contention the counsel for Ist opposite party had shown us an enlarged copy of the conditions printed on Ext.B3 since the said terms are printed in the advertisement in very fine micro prints as nobody can perceive them with normal eye. According to the counsel for Ist opposite party in the said advertisement it is shown that the Samsung products are available without their festival offers also. According to the counsel the said condition means that one can give up their gift offer and thereby get a discount of the price of the gift.



9. We find some force in the argument of the counsel for Ist opposite party and there are absolutely no evidence forthcoming from M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd to controvert or rebut the contentions of Ist opposite party. The acts of the M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd amounts to unfair trade practice as envisaged u/s 2(1) ( r) (3) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Sec.2(1)( r)(3) of the Act says that permitting the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with intention of not providing them as offered or creating impression that something is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole is an unfair trade practice.



10. Actually, the 2nd opposite party was not offering any gifts but was doing supplementary sales of items those are given as gifts by collecting the price of the gifts when a consumer was purchasing a product with the gift offer. As per the luring advertisements during Onam Festival season 2007 in the name and style ‘Samsung what is inside, know on breaking the coconut,’ the general impression given was that the gifts offered were free by 2nd opposite party and the participation in the breaking the coconut gift offer was free where as more than the price of the gifts were collected from the customer who purchased the product with offer and the whole motive was to generate profits and promoting the business through attractive advertisements and supplemental sales of the alleged gift items in an unfair manner indulging in unfair trade practice involving unfair deceptive method.



11. If the gift offer was for the general benefit of the customers, the gift scheme should have been extended to all customers without bifurcating the sale to with offers and without offers and no additional price would have been collected from customers since nobody would like to miss a chance to try their luck by participating in the scheme ‘breaking the coconut’.

A highly misleading and false impression was given in the advertisement that the gifts of 9kg gold and other items are absolutely free. Where as more than the price of the consolation gifts such as lunch box, non-stic sets, snack sets etc were collected from each consumer.

12. What else is it, if it is not unfair trade practice or deceptive method of such a gift offer for promoting the business interests?

13. Now coming to the merits of the case, there are absolutely no evidence adduced by the complainant to show that the L.G.T.V supplied to him was used one containing scratches both on T.V and on its remote control. Hence the claim for the replacement of T.V with a new one or refund of its price is rejected. But the opposite parties are certainly liable to compensate the complainant for denying him his chance to try his luck by participating in the breaking coconut gift offer.

14. We are in dismay to note that the 2nd opposite party Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd is introducing attractive prize scheme on every onam festival season in Kerala and lured with their attractive advertisements, thousands of consumers were fall in to their trap of deceptive trade practice. For unfair trade practice on such a high scale affecting thousands of consumers we propose to impose punitive damages as provided by Sub section 1(d) of Sec.14 of Consumer Protection Act. We also direct the opposite parties to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the deceptive trade practice and NOT TO REPEAT THEM in future under Sec.14 (1)(f) of the C.P.Act.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbirsingh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65 held that the Forum is entitled to award not only the value of goods or services but also to compensate the consumer for the injustice suffered by him. It was further held that the word compensation may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult , injury or loss.

Again in the case of Charansingh vs. Healing Touch Hospital reported in III 2000 CPR 1(SC), (2000) 7 SCC 668, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the compensation has to be awarded in an established case which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the loss , hardships and mental agony suffered by him due to missing his chance to try his luck in the gift offer provided by 2nd opposite party along with a cost of Rs.3000/-. 2nd opposite party, Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd is further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) in the Legal Aid Account attached to this Forum for providing legal service to those consumers who have no means to fight their cases against the multi national companies, powerful business houses, service providers, traders and manufacturers.

The 2nd opposite party is restrained from selling their products during festival seasons that contains gift offers, which include the price of the gifts. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment in addition to the deposit of punitive compensation and payment of costs.

Tmt.Kamala Raman,

H-807, Phase IV, Ganapathy Maa Naga,

Ganapathy, Coimbatore-6. --- Complainant

Vs.


1. M/s. Sri Devi Enterprises,

Samsung Exclusive Showroom,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-2

2. M/s. Asia Electronics,

Samsung Authorised Service Centre,

Coimbatore – 2

3. M/s.Samsung India Electronic Pvt.Ltd.

61, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019. -- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr. V.Jagadeesan, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the whole amount of Rs.29,000 with 18% interest p.a., to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the defective product supplied, to pay hiring charges of Rs.15,000 and to pay cost of Rs.5000.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:



1. The complainant had used their pensionery earnins and purchased refrigerator of make Samsung, Model RT 45, Capacity 400 ltrs, type – Frost free along with stabilizer We-care 1 KVA on 7th May 2009 vide invoice No.461 dt.7th May 2009 for a total cost of Rs.29,000 from the 1st opposite party. The product was installed by the representative of 1st opposite party on 7th May 2009. The 1st opposite party failed to give the cash receipt for Rs.29,000, warranty card and user manual of the product purchased and on being asked the 1st opposite party mentioned that it will be delivered on a later date. Inspite of repeated reminder no response has been received from the time of delivery till the date of filing this complaint, thus the 1st opposite party is resorting to unfair trade practice.

2. On 9th May 2009, the 2nd opposite party had sent their representative for demonstration. During demonstration certain defects which were noticed by the complainant. The defects is as follows:-

a. Excess accumulation of water in vegetable tray

b. Excess moisture and water droplets in all air tight containers

c. Water accumulation in the tray behind the frost free refrigerator

d. All vegetables and fruits getting spoiled due to excess chillness in the refrigerator even in the minimum cold set up

e. Frost formation in the inner walls of the freezer of the frost free refrigerator

f. Seepage of water from the vegetable tray and dirt/mud ingress in the inside of the side wall cover of vegetable tray

g. Water condensation in the chiller which is further dropping down inside the refrigerator

h. No warranty card given to complainant by the 1st opposite party along with the product

i. No user manual given to the complainant by 1st opposite party along with the product.

The representative of 2nd opposite party failed to clarify the reason therein for the above mentioned defects as brought out by the complainant. The representative of the 2nd opposite party was technically incompetent and had no knowledge of the operation of the company product thereby displaying lack of service by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Thus the complainant had lost faith in the manufacturer and its product.

3. Finding no response from the opposite parties, the complainant had further telephonically complained to the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 21st May 2009. However on 22nd May 2009 a technician named Ranjeet from 2nd opposite party had visited but further failed to acknowledge and accept the defects in the product. The same was mentioned by the complainant on the job card NO.HO 7943 of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had contacted the opposite parties in several occasions since 22nd May 2009 but the opposite parties had not responded in any from thereby displaying deficiency in services. Hence this complaint.



4. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A5 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.



The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

5. This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties claiming compensation and refund of the whole amount of Rs.29,000 for the supply of low quality and defective product of refrigerator on 7th May 2009 with some other reliefs.

6. Ex.A1 is the invoice dated 7.5.09 for Rs.29,000. Ex.A2 is the photographs of defects of refrigerator. Ex.A3 is the legal notice sent to opposite parties and A4 & A5 are the acknowledgement cards. As per Ex.A1 the complainant has purchased Model RT 45, Capacity 400 ltrs, type – Frost free along with stabilizer We-care 1 KVA. As per complainant on 9.5.09 during the demonstration by the 2nd opposite party certain defects were noticed and the representative failed to clarify the reason for the defects and failed to rectify the same. Even after receiving the written complaints and legal notice, the defects were not rectified. We are of the view the complainant has proved his case by way of Proof Affidavit as well as documents. The act of the opposite parties by selling low quality and defective product is nothing but an unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

7. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to refund the whole amount of Rs.29,000 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from 7.5.09 till the date of refund and to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

i bought a samsung 40" LED Model EH5000 on 06/08/12 from Satnam Electronics,Pakhowal Road,Ludhiana. But today i am shocked to know that it is not a pure LED it is a LCD LED with hybrid technology.I want pure Led. If not replaced I would sue in the cour of law and will claim damages for deceiving me by samsung company.

Waiting early reply in this regard.

Thanks & regards.

Sanjay Gupta
Advocate
Baba Mit Singh Nagar,
Backside SBI Phullanwal,
Pakhowal Road,
Ludhiana
mob no. 9780188611.