J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OP No. 1 for delivering him a manipulated TV set.

            The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a TV set from Op No. 1 on 18.01.2016 vide Model No. SLTV14FQT-UZK for a consideration of Rs. 5,800=00 which manufactured by the Proforma P.O. No. 2 and OP No. 1 issued a money receipt bearing No. 4077 and also delivered a warranty card to the complainant which is valid for 12 months.

After few days the TV set begun to create problems in respect of its picture as the picture came black and white and thereafter it got shut down.  The complainant made contact on 08.02.2016 with OP No. 1 and as per advice complainant went before the OP No. 1 on 09.02.2016 and the OP No. 1 kept the TV set in their custody for two days and thereafter returned the same stating the problem occurred due to problem of cable but they refused to issue any document about such repairing. Thereafter in the month of March, June and August, 2016 the TV set created several problems on each and every occasion the complainant went before the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 kept the TV set in their custody for two or three days for repairing before returning the same but without issuing a job sheet or any document regarding repairing of the TV set.

In the month of August, 2016, i.e. at the time of last repairing, being so harassed asked the OP No. 1 regarding such defects in a new TV and also requested them for furnishing him the telephone number of the Service Centre, but instead of delivering those contact numbers the OP No. 1 misbehaved with the complainant. Being so aggrieved, after collecting the phone numbers of Proforma OP No. 2, made contact and requested them for solving the problems in his TV Set. Thereafter, as per request of the Proforma OP No. 2 , the complainant supplied them the model number and after getting the model number, the Proforma OP No. 2 intimated the complainant that their Company never manufactured any TV set with such model number and for that reason they are not entitled to give any service to the complainant.  After getting such information the complainant got surprised because all the documents, bills of OP No. 1 and TV set shows that the TV set has manufactured by the Proforma OP No. 3.

After knowing the fact from the Proforma OP No. 2, the complainant contacted with the Op No. 1 with a request for solving the dispute but the OP No. 1 neither pays any heed. The OP No. 1 on the one hand delivered a defecated TV set and on the other hand delivered the TV set by suppressing the actual fact. Moreover, the OP No. 1 not only delivered a manipulated TV set in the name of the Proforma OP No. 3 but also did not take any step to solve the dispute. These conduct of the OP No. 1 are acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and is liable to compensate the complainant.

The complainant prayed for directing the OP No. 1 to replace the TV set by a new one so manufactured by the Proforma OP No. 3 or to pay a sum of Rs. 5,800=00 along with interest @12% per annum from 18.01.2016 till realization, directing the OP No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000=00 towards mental pain and agony and harassment and Rs. 20,000=00 for litigation cost.

O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 never appeared and contested the case inspite of service of notice upon them and the case if heard ex parte against O. P.  Nos. 1 & 2. The complaint petition is only contested by the Proforma OP No. 3 denying all the allegations made by the complainant by the complainant in the complaint petition.

The case of the Proforma OP No. 3 is that the complainant came before the Proforma OP No. 2, the authorized service centre of the answering OP and upon query and inspection, came up with the opinion that the TV set bearing model No. SLTV14FQT-UZK has been never manufactured by the answering OP. the TV sets manufactured by the answering OP have model no. consisting of 15-digit alphanumeric identification code and the TV set in dispute is having 12-digit alphanumeric identification code. Furthermore, the warranty card annexed by the complainant to the petition shows the company name as “Samsung Electronics Ltd”, but the answering OP is not a limited company but a private limited company and is doing business under the trade name of “Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.”. Further, the “SAMSUNG” logo on the warranty card is never being in use by the answering OP. The answering OP stylizes the word “Samsung” as “SAMSUNG”. The warranty card reveals that it is nothing but counterfeit. The answering OP is not liable for the counterfeit product sold by the Op No. 1. The answering OP’s products are sold through its authorized Dealers and the answering OP is no way related to such counterfeit products being sold by the OP No. 1. There is no deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP. The answering OP prays for dismissal of the complaint against them.

Decision with reasons:-

            Complainant to prove his case filed his evidence-on-affidavit stating the fact which he has already stated in his complaint petition. The complainant purchases a TV from OP No. 1. OP No. 1 who refused to receive the notice of this case and did not appear to contest the same. Therefore, the case is heard ex parte against Op No. 1. However, from the body of the complaint petition it is clear that main allegation of the complainant is against OP No. 1, the Proprietor of New Betar Shilpa, the shop room wherefrom the complainant purchased the TV, allegedly manufactured by SAMSUNG Company. OP No. 2, S. P. Infotech, SAMSUNG Service Centre is the service centre of OP No. 3, i.e. SAMSUNG Electronics Private Limited, represented by his Director etc.

            From the body of the complaint it is also clear that OP Nos. 2 & 3 is mentioned as Proforma Opposite Party as no relief actually claimed from the OP Nos. 2 & 3. But a direction was prayed for before this Forum by the Complainant directing the OP No. 1 to replace the defective TV set with an original TV set of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. or to refund the purchase money along with interest, compensation and litigation cost etc.

            Though OP No. 1 did not contest this complaint, OP No. 3 appeared and filed their written version wherein OP No. 3 specifically stated that the said TV Set purchased by the complainant is a counterfeit product and the TV Model No. SLTV14FQT-UZK. Moreover, they claimed that the TV sets manufactured by such model number consisting of 15-digit alphanumeric identification code but the particular set of the complainant in dispute is having 12-digit alphanumeric identification code. The company name of the counterfeit product of the complainant goes to show SAMSUNG Electronics Limited but OP No. 3 specifically states that SAMSUNG Company’s business is of the different name of SAMSUNG India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. with a specific logo SAMSUNG. The warranty card supplied by the complainant of the counterfeit product is only being used by OP No. 3. OP No. 3 sold their products through its authorized dealers and also can vouch on the genuineness of such product. Therefore, OP No. 3 has given specimen warranty card, warranty manual which marked as Annexure ‘A’  and comparing the same with the complainant’s document it is easily found and detected that the complainant purchased counterfeit product sold by OP No. 1. OP No. 3 rightly argues that they are not answerable for any defect or deficiency in service and loss and injury suffered by the complainant for any counterfeit product.

            Complainant files a petition before this Forum that he intends to put some questions before the OP No. 3 to prove the genuineness of his product and whether it was actually produced by the OP No. 3. The OP No. 3 answers to such questions with the screenshot documents of their Company with their specific logos and specifically stated that TV in reference bearing Model No. SLTV14FQT-UZK and Sl. No. 14NZLP6002992L was not manufactured by the Op No. 3. The screenshot of the report of the website of SAMSUNG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. is also exhibited as Annexure ‘A’. The details of the product can be searched from this portal.

            The OP No. 3 is a ‘Private Limited Company’ and complainant’s document goes to show ‘Samsung Electronics Ltd.’ only and also found that the logo on the warranty card is found quite different after comparing the same.

            After hearing arguments from the Ld. Lawyer of OP No. 3 ad the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and on perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, as well as, OP No. 3, it is clear to this Forum that the complainant was provided with a counterfeit product which is not a genuine product of OP No. 3 and the complainant has been able to prove his case that the said TV which became defective and inoperative and therefore he intimated the OP No. 1, the seller. The complainant purchased the TV on 18.01.2016 and defect was intimated on 08.02.2016 and the TV was handed over to the seller on 09.02.2016 and no job sheet was provided to the complainant. Infact, OP No. 1 was not in a position to provide any job sheet as it was counterfeit product. Again the TV which was given back to the complainant after repairing and it went wrong in the month of March, June and August, 2016 and with these facts it was taken by the complainant to OP No. 1 and somehow repaired and thereafter again it is found that the TV became inoperative and complainant was unable to enjoy his TV as it was not repaired perfectly. Therefore, complainant collected the details of the Service Centre – OP No. 2 and from there contacted with OP No. 3 and he came to learn that the TV was never manufactured by the OP No. 3.

            From the reply of OP No. 3 it is clear that complainant has been duped with a counterfeit TV set by Op No. 1 and OP No. 1 is liable for such unfair trade practice knowing fully well he supplied the TV set to the complainant after receiving Rs. 5,800=00 from the complainant. Complainant has been able to prove this fact by supplying all the documents.

            As OP No. 1 failed to contest its case, therefore, this Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant with specific direction upon the OP No. 1 and case is therefore decided ex parte against the Op No. 1.

            Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 215/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the O. P. No. 1 with cost and dismissed ex parte against the O. P. No. 2 and dismissed on contest against the O. P. No. 3 without any cost.

The O. P. No. 1 is directed to refund the purchase price of the TV set i.e., Rs. 5, 800=00 (Rs. Five thousand eight hundred) only along with interest @12% (twelve per cent) per annum from the date of purchase of the said TV set i.e., from 18.01.2016 till its realization. The O. P. No. 1 is further directed to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony of the complainant by committing unfair trade practice and O. P. No. 1 should be given exemplary punishment in the way of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000=00 (Rs. Ten thousand) only and Rs. 5,000=00 (Rs. Five thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant.

The above award should be complied by the O. P. No. 1 within 45 (forty five) days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions lf law.

            Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                       (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                    President

        (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)                                                           DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

                 President

   DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman

                                                        (Sailaranjan Das)                            (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                              Member                                          Member

                                                DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman         DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman