On October 30, the District Consumer Forum, Warangal passed a judgement that asked complainant, Ravi Chandra D to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to Samsung Electronics.
Ravi Chandra had filed the complaint with the Consumer Forum in December 2016 after he had received a defective television from Samsung. The judgement to that case has come after almost a year.
Speaking to The Logical Indian, Ravi said, “I had ordered a television from Samsung but what was delivered to me had some manufacturing defects. There were 10-15 black patches on the screen with 5-8 blue patches in the middle of the TV screen, and hence I contacted the local Samsung service centre.”
The complaint was raised on the same day, and he was assured by the customer care that his concern would be taken care of in 24 hours.
After inspection, it was established that the TV did have major defects and said that Samsung would be refunding the amount within 15 days. Ravi received a confirmation from Samsung in two days about the refund, but it was not done.
A few days later, the consumer service approached Ravi with another TV and on seeing it was in “open” condition without any company seal, he rejected it. But Samsung rejected the charge stating that the product was not in open condition.
Tired and angry, Ravi decided to file a complaint to the District Consumer Forum in the hope of redressal.
Ravi had requested for a refund of an amount of Rs.62,720 for the television along with interest at the rate of 36% per annum from 23-06-2016 till the realization; a sum of Rs.20,000 as compensation of mental agony and Rs.10,000 towards incidental expenses and costs.
Samsung claimed that it had attempted to replace the TV, but Ravi denied it, arguing that it had no seal. They even wanted to send a demand draft, but Ravi was not willing to return the defective unit until the amount is credited to his account and the same is admitted by the opposite party.
Consumer Court Verdict
The consumer court, in its verdict, directed Samsung to replace the television with same specifications to Ravi. It also directed Ravi to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to Samsung because it had kept the defective piece to himself without making adequate effort to return it.