IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of June, 2016
Filed on 19.10.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.312/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Nazar 1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics
S/o Ibrahimkutty Pvt. Ltd., 2nd , 3rd & 4th Floor
Kavalackal Tower C, Vipal Tech Square
Kollakadavu P.O. Old Golf Road, Gurgaon
Chengannur Pin – 122 002
Alappuzha – 690 509
(By Adv. Jacob Oommen) 2. M/s. N.N. Enterprises
Pallimukku, Panoor, Pallana P.O.
Alappuzha – 690 515
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a new LED TV on 3.9.2015 from the 2nd opposite party. The first opposite party is the manufacturing company of the TV. The Television has extended warranty also. Due to the improper fixing with wall bracket the Television fell down and became damage. The next day itself, the complainant informed the opposite party and the opposite party offered to give a new Television, but they demanded some more amounts from the complainant. The damage occurred is due to the improper installation by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant had approached the opposite party alleging damage to the Television and on examination it was detected that the panel board of the subject television was broken, since the physical damage either to the television or any of the components may not covered by the warranty, the technicians of the opposite party informed to the complainant that the television can be repaired by replacing the panel board on payment basis. However, the complainant insisted for replacement with a new television which was justifiably refused by the opposite party. The allegation of the complaint that the opposite party offered replacement is totally false and hence denied. Since the complainant insisted for replacement or free of cost repair, even though there was no liability, the opposite party as a special case offered 20% discount on the cost of the panel board. The said offer also was turned down by the complainant and therefore the opposite party could not repair the subject television. The estimate for repairing the subject matter television as on 19.09.2015 is Rs.14,356.33/-, including applicable tax. The complainant refused to accept the said estimate and it was therefore not possible for the opposite party to repair the television. As already stated, since the subject television was physically damaged due to improper handling by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled for warranty attention. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. 2nd opposite party appeared before the Forum and submitted that they are willing to settle the matter. Thereafter they did not turn up.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. No oral or documentary evidence adduced from the side of the opposite parties.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Television from the 2nd opposite party on 3ard day September, 2015. The total price of the Television as per Ext.A1 is Rs.27,850/-. Ext.A2 is the warranty card of the Television. It is also an admitted fact that the said is covered by a warranty of one year. According to the complainant, since the 2nd opposite party and its workers did not erect the Television properly in the wall by fixing with wall bracket, the Television fell down and was broken on 18.9.2015. According to the opposite party Television was physically damaged due to improper handling by the complainant and hence he is not entitled for warranty attention. While cross examining the complainant he admitted that from the date of purchase till 18.9.2015 they were watching the Television by placing it on the table. So it has come out in evidence that what is pleaded in the complaint is not true. At the same time it is an admitted fact the damage was happened during the warranty period. The complainant has no allegation that the defect occurred in the Television was due to manufacturing defect. Opposite party admitted in the version that in order to repair the Television, the estimated amount is Rs.14,356.33/-. But they did not produce any evidence for the estimate that they made. Since the defect of Television had occurred within the warranty period, the manufacturer should show a liberal attitude towards the customer. The defect occurred within a short period of purchase. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered opinion that granting a relief under the equitable principle will be just and proper in this case. Hence the opposite party is directed to rectify the defects of the Television to the satisfaction of the complainant and complainant is directed to contribute an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of the components required for rectifying the defect.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the Television to the satisfaction of the complainant on receiving an amount of Rs.5000/- towards the costs of the components from the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Nazar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill for Rs.27,850/-
Ext.A2 - Copy of the warranty card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant /Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
