Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/47/2016

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Green Dust - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Gulkaran Singh

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.47 of 2016

                                                    Date of institution : 11.05.2016                                          

                                           Date of decision    : 22.03.2018

 

Surjit Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh R/o House No.41, Baba Fateh Singh Nagar, Ward No.10, Near HDFC Bank, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. GreenDust, Onkar Ludhiana, 523, Motibagh Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana 01612563523, at present office at Reverse Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd; opp. JP Hospital adjoining Toystoon Showroom, Ambala- Chandigarh road, Zirakpur 140603, through its proprietor/Authorized signatory.
2. Greendust, Chaudhary Satbir Complex, Near CRC-2, Sultanpur, Khasra No.337, Ist Floor, New Delhi, through its authorized signatory.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044, through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President       

Sh. Inderjit , Member                                

 

Present :        Sh. Gulkaran Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.       

                      Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                      Sh. Manjeet Singh, Representative of OP No.2.

                      Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Surjit Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh R/o House No.41, Baba Fateh Singh Nagar, Ward No.10, Near HDFC Bank, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased a LED TV 48 inches of Samsung company i.e. UA48H5100ARLXL, vide RLC No.90000315020034 for the sum of Rs.58,000/- on 14.04.2015 from OP No.1. At the time of sale of said LED TV, OP No.1 issued guarantee/warrantee of two years for any defect in the same and it was also assured that in case of any defect during the said warrantee period, the LED will be replaced with new one. Thereafter in the month of March 2016, the LED in question started creating problem of display as nothing shown on the screen while switch on the LED TV. The complainant approached OP No.1 at the given address in the complaint, but it came to the knowledge of the complainant that OP No.1 had shifted its concern/office at Zirakpur. Then the complainant approached OP No.1 at Zirakpur, where it was suggested to the complainant to file the complaint at customer care centre. Then the complainant made a complaint on 17.03.2016 on the customer care centre, vide complaint No. GD-PAT-060420 but no response was given to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant again went to office of OP No.1, who sent his technician in the last week of March 2016 at the residence of the complainant and after inspection, the said technician assured the complainant that the defect will be removed or the LED will be replaced with new one. But neither the defect was removed nor the LED was replaced with new one.  The complainant again approached the office of OP No.1 and requested to remove the defect or to replace the LED with new one or to refund the like amount, but OP No.1 has totally refused to do so. The complainant also served a legal notice on the OPs but  in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the said LED with new one or to return the amount of LED i.e. Rs. 58,000/-,  and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.         Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but OP No.1 refused to accept the notice and chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte. The complaint is contested by OPs No. 2 & 3.

4.         In reply to the complaint, OP No.2 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same is gross abuse of process of law and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of concealment of facts. As regards to the facts of the complaint it stated that the LED was reported for its non-functioning vide complaint No. GD-PAT-060420 and during the course of diagnosis of the said LED, it was found that the product was exposed to high voltage, as a result of which the warrantee was void. However it was explained that services can be provided to the product subject to payment of charges as it is a void warrantee case.  It was also found during the course of repair work that the power supply panel was damaged due to said incidence of unfortunate high voltage explosure. The complainant denied to avail the service of OP No.2 against charges. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.         In reply to the complaint, OP No.3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum; the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; the complaint is gross misuse of process of law and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that as per its policy, there is only one year warrantee from the date of purchase subject to warrantee terms and conditions mentioned in the warrantee card. The product is not liable to be replaced under the warrantee terms and conditions. The complainant has never approached OP No.3 with regard to any kind of problem in the alleged LED. It is further stated that the warrantee has already expired and complainant is only entitled for repair on chargeable basis. The complainant has failed to prove on record that LED cannot be repaired, thus he is not entitled for replacement or refund of price. There is no deficiency in service on its part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.         In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copy of invoice Ex. C-2, legal notice Ex. C-3, postal receipt Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Arun Gupta, Representative Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya  Bose Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.

7.         Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the LED TV was under warrantee period of Two years, therefore the OPs were under obligation to repair and replace the said LED TV, without any charges.

8.         On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.2 stated that the said LED was reported for its non-functioning by complainant, vide complaint No. GD-PAT-060420 and during the course of diagnosis of the said LED, it was found that the product was exposed to high voltage, thus the warrantee was void. He pleaded that complainant was offered the service on payment basis, due to damage of the power supply panel of  LCD.

9.         Learned counsel for the OP no.3 argued that the complainant never contacted the OP no.3, with regard to the defect in the LED nor OP no.3 ever sent its service engineer for inspection of the said LED. He further argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed qua OP no.3, as no deficiency in service has been committed by it.

10.       After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to place on record any material document, as regard to the warrantee offered by the OP no. 1 & 2 for Two years. No terms and conditions had been placed on record, with regard to the fact  that, if the LED TV gets defective/damaged, the OP no.1 & OP no.2 shall be liable to repair the same free of costs or replace its defective/damaged parts etc. On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Arun Gupta, Representative Ex. OP2/1, wherein it has been stated that, complainant had reported  vide complaint No. GD-PAT-060420 that the LED TV was not functioning properly and during the course of diagnosis of the said LED, it was found that the product was exposed to high voltage, as a result of which the warrantee was void and complainant was only entitled for repair on chargeable basis. Further OP no.3 had tendered affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP3/1, wherein it has been stated that as per its policy there is only one year warrantee from the date of purchase, subject to warrantee terms and conditions mentioned in the warrantee card. The product was not liable to be replaced under the warrantee terms and conditions. The complainant had never approached OP No.3 with regard to any kind of problem in the alleged LED.

11.       Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, we find that complainant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence, as regard to the warrantee offered by the OPs. The complainant has also failed to establish that despite the LED TV being defective/damaged, the same was covered under warrantee. Hence the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Parties to bear their own costs.

12. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 16.03.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:22.03.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)        

        President

 

 

 

(Inderjit)

 Member