Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/534

Subash Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aaina Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Goyal Adv.

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 534 of 22.07.2016

Date of Decision            :   28.11.2016

Subhash Bansal, House No.B-1/1/1358, Ram Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Aaina Electronics, Old Court Road, Domoria Pull Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

2.Samsung Digital through its Head Office at Plot No.32, Sector-3, Guru Gyan Vihar, Ludhiana.

3.Jagjit Singh & Ms.Priya c/o Samsung Digital near Baba Deep Singh Gurudwara Sahib, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Gaurav Joshi, Advocate    

For OP1 and OP2          :        Ex-parte

For OP3                         :         Complaint against OP3 not admitted vide orders

dated 1.8.2016.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant purchased Samsung LED 32J4300 from OP1 vide invoice No.2687 dated 23.2.2016 for Rs.31,900/- with the assurance that the said LED will work in perfect condition and will be having warranty of one year. Even warranty card was issued to the complainant. However, that LED did not work properly because of its being defective piece. Mother board of the said TV went out of order on 4.4.2016 and thereafter, report was lodged and officials of Ops came for setting the defect right. However, on 8.4.2016, LED started blinking and complainant again lodged complaint with Ops and officials came for setting the defect right. However, matter did not end there. On 14.4.2016, the mother board of the LED stood burnt and on lodging the complaint, the officials of Ops turned up but refused to change the mother board. On repeated requests, the mother board stood changed. On 24.5.2016, LED again started creating the same problem, due to which, on lodging of complaint, officials of Ops came for disclosing that main plate of the LED has burnt and same is not available in stock. They disclosed that as and when the main plate will be available in the stock, the same will be replaced. Complainant got installed Dish TV of Airtel company with one year package by paying the entire charges for full one year. LED is not working properly and mostly remains out of order and as such, the money paid for the dish package went waste. When complaint made with OP3, then they misbehaved with the complainant and did not give proper response. Officials of Ops tried to get signatures of the complainant on 4.6.2016 on some documents in a deceitful manner, but the complainant was not satisfied and that is why the officials of Ops misbehaved with him. As the LED provided to the complainant is defective and as such, request made by the complainant to Ops to replace the same after acceptance of offer of additional charges, if required. However, all requests fell on deaf ears and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops and after serving legal notice dated 7.6.2016, this complaint filed with request to Ops to replace the defective LED with new one and pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and agony.

2.       Complaint against OP3 was not permitted to be proceeded with at the time of admission stage vide orders of 1.8.2016. Deficiency was pleaded on the part of OP1 and OP2 and as such, they were alone ordered to be summoned. However, none appeared for OP1 and OP2 despite service through owner/Manager and as such, OP1 and OP2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders of 26.10.2016.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and then closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Oral arguments heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                 Ex.C1 is copy of invoice showing purchase of Samsung LED 32J4300 for consideration of Rs.31,900/- from OP1. Service request Ex.C3 was submitted by the complainant with service centre on 24.5.2016 during full warranty period. Description of defective is mentioned as BN44-00801B and as per remarks customer refused to repair. As per para no.3 of the complaint and supporting affidavit, main plate of LED was burnt on 24.5.2016 and the same was not replaced being out of stock. However, that is not borne from the contents of Ex.C3 of date 24.5.2016 itself because in the column of remark itself it is mentioned that customer refused to repair. So, it is not a case, in which, service centre of Ops refused to provide services on 24.5.2016. Contents of Ex.C3 falsify the claim of the complainant qua non providing of service due to non-availability of the main plate in the LED in the stock.

6.                On back of Ex.C3, complainant endorsed note of non satisfaction due to mis-behaviour of OP3 i.e. Mr.Jagjit Singh and Ms.Priya and that is why protest was virtually lodged after refusal by the complainant on date 24.5.2016. So, protest note dated 4.6.2016 recorded after 10 days of developed problem of 24.5.2016.

7.                Ex.C8 provides that warranty of two years provided for the purchased LED in question. The offered warranty is 1 year standard and one year extended on panel only. Even if the customer may have refused to repair through Ex.C3, despite that warranty still exist because the same to lapse on 22.2.2017 due to standard offer of 1 year. However, the panel warranty to expire on 22.2.2018 on account of extended warranty and as such, OP1 and OP2 bound to repair the LED in question free of cost by replacing the required parts. Copy of legal notice Ex.C4 along with postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 shows that legal notice was served on all the Ops through registered post. Earlier defects pointed out on 4.4.2016 and 8.4.2016 were rectified as per the contents of para no.2 of the complaint itself. If those defects could have been removed by the Ops on these two dates, then there was no hitch with them in removing the subsequent defects, particularly when burnt mother board even was changed on lodging of the complaint on 14.4.2016 as per contents of para no.2 of the complaint. In view of warranty of 1 year, the main plate of LED liable to be replaced free of cost and even other defects in the LED liable to be rectified within the warranty period, free of cost. As the complainant himself refused to get the repair done and as such, he himself is responsible for mental harassment caused due to defects surfacing in the LED after 24.5.2016. Complaint endorsed on back   of Ex.C3 pertains to mis-behave by both OP3 and not qua non providing of service. So, complainant entitled for repair of the LED free of cost. As misbehavior by OP3, employees of OP1 and OP2, goaded complainant to file this complaint and as such, complainant has to suffer on account of non availing of dish package also. That misbehavior was on 04.06.2016 and not before that and as such, sufferings of the complainant at hands of employees of OP1 and OP2, started after 04.06.2016 only. So complainant entitled for compensation for mental harassment and also to litigation expenses.

8.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte with directions to OP1 and OP2 to repair the LED in question in all respect free of cost for making the same functional within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.6000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 and OP2 only. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made by OP1 and OP2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liability of OP1 and OP2 will be joint and several. Complaint against OP3 has already been held to be not maintainable at the stage of admission as revealed by orders dated 1.8.2016. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                   (Vinod Bala)                                       (G.K. Dhir)

                                      Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:28.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.