BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 274 of 2017
Date of Institution : 24.10.2017
Date of Decision : 16.01.2018.
Hitesh Kumar Vij son of Sh. Satyapal Vij (aged about 41 years) resident of Vij Photostat, Sadar Bazar Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Electronics Hub, Opp. R.C. Hotel, Near Dr. G.K. Aggarwal, Surkhab Chowk, Sirsa through its proprietor Tushar Aggarwal s/o Sh. Anjani Aggarwal.
2. Samsung India Corporate Office: Golf Course Road, Sec-43, DLF, PH-V, Gurgaon- 122202 (Gurugram) through its Director/ Managing Director/ Authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased one LED of 32 inches of Samsung company Model Series No.4,4003 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.10,500/- on 6.4.2017, the warranty of which was for one year and its warranty card was given to the complainant by the opposite party no.1. When the complainant demanded bill of the said LED, the op no.1 stated that there is no need of bill and they are giving warranty of one year with warranty card and during this period if any problem will occur then they will replace the LED with new one. That as the complainant was knowing the op no.1 previously, so believing upon op no.1, he purchased the said LED from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.10,500/-. It is further averred that on 16.8.2017 there was no power supply in the LED upon which he telephonically informed op no.1 in this regard and op no.1 stated that he will check the LED. On 18.8.2017, op no.1 came to the shop of complainant and after inspecting the LED, he stated that LED will have to be taken to his shop and then op no.1 took the LED with him. Thereafter, the complainant asked op no.1 telephonically after two-three days that LED has been repaired or not upon which op no.1 stated that power supply card of the LED has been burnt and there is no warranty of card, so he has to pay Rs.3000/-. The complainant asked that when he has given warranty of LED for one year then as to why he has to pay the amount of Rs.3000/-, the op no.1 stated that he does not know about any warranty card and if he wants repair of the LED, he will have to pay Rs.3000/-. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite party no.1 a number of times for repair of the LED being in warranty period of one year but op no.1 flatly refused to do repair and returned the defective LED to him at his shop. It is further averred that thereafter complainant called a Mechanic on his shop for repair of the LED and the Mechanic after checking of the LED disclosed that alongwith card its screen is also broken from inside. The complainant informed the op no.1 in this regard upon which op no.1 stated that after sale of the product, they are not responsible and after hearing this, the complainant has suffered mental agony. It is further averred that complainant purchased the LED from opposite party no.1 with warranty card as he was earlier known to him and op no.1 did not give any bill of the same and op no.1 has broken the screen of the LED at the time of its inspection for which he is responsible. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 failed to appear despite service and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that in case any after sale service/ quality issue is brought to the notice of the op/ service center, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. Had the complainant approached the service center of the answering op rightfully with correct facts, prompt service would have been provided but the complainant has preferred the instant complaint. That the answering op as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/ repair has been done to the product and the same was not mishandled. It is further submitted that complaint of complainant is only against the seller of the unit as the complainant has not provided any bill of purchase for the alleged unit. Also it is pertinent to mention here that the op no.1 i.e. Electronic Hub is not an authorized dealer of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and answering op is not responsible for any act of op no.1. The op no.2 sells its products through authorized dealers with providing invoice/ bill for its products and for the after sale services, the customers have to furnish the invoice for their products before the service centers of the answering op established by Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. across the country. In the present case of complainant, as per details provided by the complainant, the op no.1 has not provided the invoice/ bill for the alleged unit and also the complainant never reported any issue before the answering op.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of warranty card Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose Ex.R1 and copy of warranty information Ex.R2.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegations that he had purchased 32” LED of Samsung company from opposite party no.1 on 6.4.2017 and on 16.8.2017 supply was not in the LED as a result of which he lodged complaint with opposite party no.1 for a number of times but he did not make the same defect free. Further there are allegations of the complainant that on purchase of LED, op no.1 did not issue any bill and only issued a warranty card. The complainant in order to prove his plea has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. He has also placed on file copy of warranty card Ex.C3. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 did not put its appearance despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The opposite party no.1 in its reply as well as in affidavit Ex.R1 has clearly deposed that op no.1 is not dealer of op no.2 nor the complainant has placed on file any bill regarding purchase of the LED manufactured by op no.2. Further more, the allegations are only against opposite party no.1 the person who sold LED to the complainant. There is nothing on record from which it could be presumed that LED in question is duly manufactured by op no.2. Moreover, no bill has been placed on file, nor the warranty card bears any signatures or seal of op no.2. So no case is made out against op no.2 and complaint against op no.2 is dismissed. But however, since the opposite party no.1 had sold out the LED in question to the complainant, as such it is legal obligation of the opposite party no.1 to provide proper services and to make LED of the complainant defect free.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint against opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to carry out the necessary repairs in the LED and to make the LED in question of the complainant defect free even by replacing parts, if any free of costs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant is directed to hand over the defective LED in question to the op no.1 well in time against proper receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:16.1.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
