CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.606/2013
MR. RAMCHANDRA GUPTA
F-93, ROOM NO.28, NEAR SHIV MANDIR,
KATWARIA SARAI, NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S BALAJI ELECTRONICS
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. HARIOM GUPTA
RZ-2, SYNDICATE ENCLAVE,
DABRI MORE, (OPP C-3 JANAKPURI)
PANKHA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110045
- M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2ND, 3RD , 4TH FLOOR, TOWER-C, VIPULTECH SQUARE,
GOLF COURSE ROAD, GURGAON-02
- SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTRE
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
F-26/3, OKHLA PHASE-2, NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 03.07.2017
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of complainant is that on 24.03.13 he purchased one “Samsung 32” LED TV (Model No.UA32EH4000R) for a sum of Rs.27,000/- from OP-1.
It is further stated that complainant did not use the TV initially for few months as he left for his native place. Complainant came back to Delhi in July and when complainant switched on the TV the same did not run properly and after few seconds it switched off automatically. The matter was reported to the Customer Care representative of OP-2. Thereafter representative of OP-3 came to the residence of complainant and checked the TV and refused to repair the TV on the ground that TV is not Indian make but a foreign make. It is stated that it was only on that day complainant came to know that OP-1 has sold a foreign make TV to him.
It is further stated that complainant contacted OP-1 and personally went to shop of OP-1 but OP-1 misbehaved with the complainant and did not replace the TV. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest and also sought compensation and litigation expenses.
OP-1 was proceeded ex parte.
OP-2 is manufacturer and OP-3 is service centre of OP-2.
OP-2 and OP-3 in reply took the plea that under the terms of warranty, they are obliged to repair the products purchased by customers which are manufactured in India. However, as regards purchase of products manufactured outside India but purchased within India from any dealer does not contain Indian warranty provided by OP for the products manufactured in India. It is pertinent to point out that to claim service of such products which are manufactured outside India, the customer is required to obtain international warranty card from the concerned dealer who had sold such product to the customers. Upon obtaining such international warranty card from the concerned dealer, OP provides service to customers in consonance with service policy upon service charge of Rs.5,000/- and cost of parts required to be placed.
It is further stated that on 20.07.13, they received the first complaint regarding sound problem with respect to the said LED TV. In pursuance thereto, the service engineer of OP visited the residence of complainant and upon inspection, it was found that the said LED TV is of foreign make and not manufactured in India however, the same had been sold in India. The service engineer of OP informed complainant that since the LED set is not manufactured in India and is a foreign make, the same will not fall under Indian warranty. However, in terms of Company policy, OP informed complainant to provide them with the International warranty card obtained from the dealer and to pay Rs.5,618/- for service charges and cost of the parts to be replaced. The complainant however, refused to pay Rs.5,618/- as service charges and cost of parts to be replaced, and insisted upon replacement of the defective set free of cost. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the records carefully.
It is borne from the reply of OP-2 and OP-3 that the first complaint regarding sound problem in the said LED TV was received on 20.07.13. The service engineer of OP visited the residence of complainant and it was found that the said LED TV is of foreign make. The service engineer of OP informed complainant that since the LED set is a foreign make, the same will not fall under Indian warranty. However, in terms of Company policy, OP informed complainant to provide them with the International warranty card obtained from the dealer and to pay Rs.5,618/- for service charges and cost of the parts to be replaced. The customer service card is placed on the record which clearly shows that complainant refused to pay the amount hence the repairs were not carried out. Since the TV set was foreign make, OP-2 and OP-3 were not liable to repair the same.
Definitely OP-1 is liable as he has sold the foreign product unauthorizedly to complainant. It is evident from the invoice that there was defect in the TV. Complainant specifically stated that he visited OP-1 and requested to replace the TV but OP-1 misbehaved and abused him. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
OP is directed to refund Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
