Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/91

Gurmeet singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arora Tele shop - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :        91         

Date of Institution :   4.04.2016

Date of Decision :     6.09.2016

 

Gurmeet Singh Prop. Dasmesh Service Station, Bathinda  Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                               .....Complainant

                                       

Versus

1. Arora Tele Shop, Railway Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its Authorized Person.

2. Head Office, Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana (India) through its Managing Director.

....Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                OP-1 Exparte.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective LED and for further directing OPs to pay Rs. 70,000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased  a new Samsung LED TV 32’ from OP-1 vide bill dated 17.10.2015 and paid Rs.23,500/-in cash. At the time of purchase of said LED OP-1 assured complainant of its perfection and also gave guarantee and warranty for five years, but after  some days of installation of said LED, it was found that it was not working properly and even picture on the screen was not visible. Complainant immediately lodged complaint regarding this defect with Company on 9.01.2016 and on his complaint, OPs sent their Engineer, who checked the LED T.V and disclosed that penal of LED is defective and that was the reason due to which picture on the screen was not visible. Said Engineer of OPs could not repair the LED and he assured that it would be replaced within short time, but  despite repeated requests made by complainant, OPs neither removed the defect in the said LED nor replaced the same. Complainant also brought this fact into the notice of OP-1, but he also could not do anything. Thereafter, he issued legal notice dated 27.02.2016  to OPs, but that also bore no fruit. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs.70,000/-harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses alongwith main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                              Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.04.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                        Notice containing copy of complaint was issued to OP-1 through registered post but same was not received back undelivered in the Forum. Statutory period expired. Case was called up many times, but OP-1 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. Therefore, vide order dt 19.05.2016, OP-1 was proceeded against exarte.

5                                     OP-2 filed reply and brought before the Forum that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as LED of complainant has been mishandled, which resulted in breakage of its panel and that is why picture on it is not visible. Being  physically damaged,  it falls under warranty void conditions and thus, repair if any is to be carried out on chargeable basis, but complainant himself refused to get the same repaired on chargeable basis and therefore Service Engineer sent by OPs on complaint of complainant came back without making any repairs. Complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the complainant. It is further averred that Engineer of Ops, when  visited the house of complainant,  on checking, he found that panel of the LED was broken and there was no other defect in said LED. It is further averred that damage due to physical breakage is not covered under warranty. Moreover, complainant has not alleged any specific defect in LED and also there is no expert evidence brought by the complainant. Relief sought by complainant is not permissible under terms and conditions of the warranty. It is further averred that complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention only to extract money from OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as answering Ops have never denied services to complainant, rather it is the complainant who has refused to get repair his LED on chargeable basis. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                               Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit  of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                             To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose as Ex Op-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2 and thereafter, evidence of OP-2 was closed by order of this Forum.

8                                            We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party NO. 2.

  9                                       Ld Counsel for complainant argued before the Forum that complainant purchased  a new Samsung LED TV 32’ from OP-1 vide bill dated 17.10.2015 Ex C-5 and paid Rs.23,500/-in cash. At the time of purchase, OP-1 assured of its perfection alongwith guarantee and warranty for five years, but after  some days of installation of said LED, it was found that it was not working properly and even picture on the screen was not visible. Complainant immediately lodged complaint regarding defect with Company and on his complaint, OPs sent their Engineer, who checked the LED T.V and disclosed that penal of LED is defective and that’s why picture on the screen was not visible.  Engineer of OPs could not repair the LED and he assured that it would be replaced within short time, but despite repeated requests made by complainant, OPs neither removed the defect nor replaced the same. Complainant also brought this fact into the notice of OP-1, who also could not do anything. Thereafter, he issued legal notice dated 27.02.2016 Ex C-2 to OPs, but that also bore no fruit. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

10                                      To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as LED of complainant has been mishandled, which resulted in breakage of its panel and that is why picture on it is not visible. Being  physically damaged,  it falls under warranty void conditions and thus, repair if any is to be carried out on chargeable basis, but complainant himself refused to get the same repaired on chargeable basis and therefore Service Engineer sent by OPs on complaint of complainant came back without making any repairs. Complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the complainant. It is further averred that Engineer of Ops, found that panel of the LED was broken and there was no other defect in said LED. It is further averred that damage due to physical breakage is not covered under warranty. Moreover, complainant has not alleged any specific defect in LED and there is no expert evidence produced by the complainant. Relief sought by complainant is not permissible under terms and conditions of the warranty. Complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention to extract money from OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as answering Ops have never denied services to complainant, rather it is the complainant who has refused to get repair his LED on chargeable basis. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                     We have thoroughly gone through the evidence and arguments led by the parties. The case of the complainant is that he purchased an LED TV from OPs and within warranty period, it was not working properly and picture on the screen was not visible. He lodged complaint regarding it to OPs. The Engineer of OPs checked the LED TV and found that penal of LED is defective and assured that it would be replaced within short period but despite repeated requests of complainant, they did not remove the defect from said LED. In reply, OPs submitted that LED of complainant has been mishandled which resulted in breakage of panel and that is why, picture on screen was not visible. They sent their Engineer to check the same. As complainant has breached the warranty terms and conditions, so, the repair was to be carried out on chargeable basis and not under warranty conditions as there is physical damage to LED.

12                                            The allegations of OPs is that the defect in LED is due to mishandling and physical damage to the same, which is not covered under the warranty conditions. The Ops failed to prove that whether there is any mishandling or physical damage to the LED in question. Even they did not produce the job sheet prepared by their Engineer to check the LED in question wherein he reported about physical damage to the LED which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to repair the LED in question and to replace the panel of the LED and other parts if necessary free of costs under warranty conditions up to the satisfaction of complainant. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-to complainant as litigation expenses incurred by him. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 6.09.2016

 

                                        Member                                  President

           (P Singla)                                (Ajit Aggarwal)