BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 25^th February 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.160/2014

(Admitted on 14.05.2014)

Mr. M.V.S. Naidu,

S/o MNVSSC Bose,

Aged 42 years,

Residing at No.90 ABHIMAN GARDEN,

Opp. City Hospital,

Mallikatta,

Mangalore  560003.

                                                                     ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KPVR)

VERSUS

1. M/s Reliance Digital,

    City Centre Mall,

    K.S. Rao Road,

    Mangalore  575003.

2. M/s Reliance Digital Retail Ltd,

    Reliance Corporate Park,

    Building No.G4, Ground floor,

    C Wing, Thane Belapur,

    Ghansoli,

     Navi Mumbati  400701.

3. The Chief Executive Officer,

    Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd,

    2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th floor,

    Vipul Tech square, Golf Course Road,

    Sector 43,

    Gurgaon,

    Haryana.

4. Resq Digital Service Center,

    Saujnaya Nilya,

    Jayashree Gate,

    Mangalore  575005.

                                                            …........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1: Sri DRK)

 (Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.2 & No.4: Ex-parte)

 (Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3: Sri KGS)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The case alleged are that complainant contends he purchased Samsung LED TV from opposite party No.1 on 26.10.2011 and  gave one year warrantee for Rs.94,000/. Complainant later purchased a plan Reliance resQ care plan from Reliance Digital Center plan for service for Rs.10,000/ for repairs and maintenance free of TV. The value period within 23.11.2012 to 23.11.2014.  During that period on 1.10.2013 TV failed to show any picture and voice was not heard and opposite party No.4 through complainant lodged online complaint after inspection endorsed parts is not available with the manufacturer. On that basis refund was sought by complainant.  Opposite party No.3 the manufacturer is not willing to pay hence seeks the relief.

II.      Opposite party No.1 filed version admits the sale and also the defect in the TV.   Opposite party No.1 also admits towards maintenance reliance resq plan care issued to complainant. Even though opposite party No.1 with malafide reason to avoid complication requested complainant to receive a sum of Rs.60,404/ being the value of the LED TV as he used LED TV for a period of two years after taking into consideration depreciation value of the product come by suppressing it not only did not receive  but did not disclose it in the complaint.  Hence he is not entitled for any other reliefs.

2.    Opposite party No.3 further contends it is not aware of the Reliance Res Q Care Plan given by opposite party No.1 to complainant as he is not involved in the said transaction.  The complainant as required under the terms to inform opposite party No.3 about the reliance resq care plan but not intimated the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3 hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.

3.     In support of the above complainant Mr. M.V.S. Naidu filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C6 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Chitranjan Sahoo (RW1) Senior Manager, Customer Experience and Mr. Rithesh Kumar Alimar (RW2) Store Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them.

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument.  We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows

               Point No.  (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Partly Affirmative

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

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):   The purchase of the TV as detailed and also of reliance resq plan from opposite party No.1 and the TV purchased is of opposite party No.3’s make and opposite party No.4 is being service centre of opposite party No.3 and thereby there is relationship of consumer and service provide between the parties is established.  There is a dispute as to complainant’s entitlement from the opponents.  Hence there is a live dispute between parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.  

POINTS No. (ii):  In this case before going to the details suffice to mention the opposite parties documents are not marked for the convenience it is now marked at Ex.R1 to R4.  Ex.R1 mentions that opposite party No.3 did offer and issued the cheque for Ex.R2 Rs.60,404/ as per documents produced by opposite party No.3 in complainant’s favour.  This aspect is not disputed by complainant, what complainant claims is he entitled for the entire value of the TV paid by him.  

2.     It was pointed out to Ex.C1 even though the value of the TV shown as Rs.90,454.01 certain reduction were given to complainant of 5% at initial amount to Rs.4,745/- and then another Rs.25,050/ by way of credit note.  In fact complainant consider these aspect which the complainant utilized for his other purposes he cannot claim the full value of the goods toward replace.  The refusal of complainant that the deduction towards depreciation for use of TV for two years is also cannot be accepted.

3.    In Shree Cements Ltd, vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors. I (2017) CPJ 35 (NC) page no.35 while holding that complainant is entitled for damages on the facts of the reported case it was held by the National Commission as the roller was installed in 1997 and damages was caused in 2006 he is not entitled for full cost of replacement of roller the same principle in our view is applicable to the facts on the hand.

4.      Considering the admitted facts the complainant used TV for 2 years and that he had enjoyed the benefit and having not shown that he paid entire amount of Rs.94,454/ for the purchase of the TV we are of the opinion the offer made by opposite party No.3 was Rs.60,404/ as per Ex.R2 in our opinion is fully justified.   As such we are of the opinion that opposite party shall be directed only to pay this amount of Rs.60,404/ to complainant with interest at 8% from the date of complaint till the date of payment without cost of the case.  In our opinion there is no justification to claim compensation towards mental agony pain and sufferance due to unjust refusal accept Rs.60,404/ by complainant himself.  Opposite party No.4 being service centre there would be no justification in making him to liable to pay the amount with other opposite parties.  Hence we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following

ORDER

     The complaint is partly allowed.  Opposite parties No.1 and No.2 and No.3 jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.60,404/ (Rupees Sixty thousand Four hundred Four only) to complainant with future interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment.

2.     No order as to cost.

3.     Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

      Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th February 2017)

             MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

  (SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR)              (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                 D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                   Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. M.V.S. Naidu

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Original TV and resQ care Plan Purchase Bill

Ex.C2: Original Resq Care plan book

Ex.C3: Original e-mails

Ex.C4: Office copy of lawyers Notice with acknowledgement

Ex.C5: Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.C6: Copy of credit card

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mr. Chitranjan Sahoo, Senior Manager, Customer-Experience

RW2  Mr. Rithesh Kumar Alimar, Store Manager

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 25.02.2017                                    PRESIDENT