Delhi

North

CC/131/2021

LAXMI NARAIN ATRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARIOM ELECTRONICS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

FARHAT QADEERI

18 Apr 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Phone: 011-23969372; 011-23912675 Email: confo-nt-dl@nic.in

Consumer Complaint No. 131/2021

In the matter of

Sh.Laxmi Narayan Atri   

S/o Late Sh.Om Prakash

R/o A-143, Atri-rishi Bhawan

Near PNB, Rajiv Gandhi Road

Swaroop Nagar, Delhi-110042

Court Address

Behind Court room No.36, Criminal Side

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054                                                 ...Complainant

Versus

Hari Om Electronics

(A Unit of Hariom Retail Pvt. Ltd.)

7679, near Amba Cinema

Ghanta ghar, Delhi-110007                                                         …Opposite Party-1

 

Samsung India Ltd.

Through its Director

Regd. Office at

6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001

Head office

Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.

20th to 24th floor, Horizon Centre

Gold Course Road, Sector-43 DLF

Phase-V, Gurugram (Haryana)-122202                                       …Opposite Party-2

 

ORDER
18/04/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

Jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Sh.Laxmi Narayan Atri, the complainant, against Hari Om Electronics, the seller as OP-1 and Samsung India Ltd., the manufacturer as OP-2, with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. 

1. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are, on 20/09/2020, the complainant visited OP-1 to purchase LED TV.  The manager/employees namely Sh. Rajkumar and Sh. Arvind Kumar convinced the complainant to purchase Samsung LED, UA32T4350 CWTR39BN902261SN/SAC, 32 inches, Smart Android, 1 GB RAM with assurance that the said TV is under two years guarantee(sic).  It was assured that in case of any defect within 03 months from the date of purchase, OP-1 will replace the defective LED with new one.  Believing the assurances, the complainant purchased Samsung LED vide challan No.13274, invoice No.HOG 1798/2021 dated 20/09/2020 for Rs.16,500/-.
2. On 21/09/2020, Sh. Vinay Sharma, the employee of OP-2 came for installation of LED but it could not be installed as it was defective with no sound.  OP-1 was informed. The defective product was replaced by OP-1 and a new receipt was issued with new LED bearing no. CWTR39BN900046.
3. It has been alleged by the complainant that he had to pay Rs. 120/- for one side cartage.  On 22/09/2020, the technician of OP-2 visited for installation but again there was no sound in the replaced 2nd LED for which OP-1 was immediately informed.  
4. The complainant visited OP-1 on the same day and sought either replacement or refund of the cost of the LED, where above named Sh.Rajkumar misbehaved and refused to replace the defective LED.  The complainant has further alleged that he was asked to pay Rs.16,500/- in case he wanted the 3rd LED TV on the pretext that the cost of the 2nd  defective LED will be returned once the complainant handed over the same to OP-1.
5. On 23/09/2020, the 2nd defective LED was returned to OP-1 alongwith the Invoice and a fresh Invoice for the 3rd LED TV vide challan NO.1351, invoice No.HOG1849/2021 dated 23/09/2020 for Rs.16,500/- was issued for purchase of Samsung LED, UA32T4350 CWTR39BN903296 SHN/SAC.  On the same day technician of OP-2 visited for installation of the 3rd LED, however after two days of installation i.e. on 25/09/2020 the 3rd LED stopped working for which OP-1 was duly informed. 
6. It has been further alleged by the complainant that Sh.Rajkumar, the Manager/employee of OP-1 not only misbehaved but intentionally and deliberately supplied the defective LEDs.   The complainant received a call from one namely Sh. Praveen, employee of OP-2 for repairing the LED, which was refused by the complainant.  Again, on 25/09/2020 and 26/09/2020, the complainant received the phone calls from the technicians of OP-2.  Meanwhile the complainant continuously tried to contact Sh.Rajkumar.
7. It has been stated by the complainant that on 27/09/2020, Sh.Nilesh, Area Incharge of OP-2, informed that their technician will visit and check the defective LED.  He also stated that the amount will be retuned or coupons will be issued. The complainant was informed that refund process will take about 10-15 days once the defective LED handed over by the complainant 
8. On 27/09/2020, the technician of OP-2 namely, Sh.Shiv Kumar found PCB defect and gave a report of no sound.  Further, the complainant also shared his account detail, cancelled cheque and ID, which was duly handed over to the representative of OP-2.  The complainant was assured that refund of Rs.16,500/- will be issued by way of DD.  It has been alleged by the complainant that above-named Sh. Nilesh, compelled the complainant to take coupons of Rs.16,500/- which was unacceptable to the complainant.
9. On 10/10/2020, on behalf of OP-2 the complainant was informed about the receipt of the coupons, to which the complainant refused, he was asked to wait for one to two months for demand draft of Rs.16,500/-.  
10. On 04/10/2020, the complainant was constrained to purchase another 32 inch Android Smart TV of MI brand as the 3rd defective LED was neither picked up by OP-2 nor any refund was initiated. Despite several communications and assurances the refund was not issued.
11. The complainant has further stated that Legal notice dated 12/07/2021 was issued to OPs, which was neither replied nor complied with.  Hence, the present complaint with the prayer for direction to OPs to refund Rs.16,500/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 20/09/2020 till realization; to take the defective LED back; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 
12. The complainant has annexed the copy of Aadhar card, visiting card alongwith envelope of OP-1, tax invoices bearing No.HOG1798/2021  dated 20/09/2020 and HOG1949/2021 dated 23/09/2020 ;  acknowledgment dated 21/09/2020 issued by OP-1; Guarantee card, Service report, I-Card of the Technician of  OP-2, photographs of the LED, cancelled cheque, driving license, purchase invoice of LED MI brand, legal notice and complaint to SHO, PS: Sabji Mandi alongwith postal receipt. 
13. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP-1 and OP-2.  None appeared on behalf of OP-1 neither any replied was filed on their behalf.  Hence, they were proceed ex-parte vide order dated 01/11/2022.  
14. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-2 taking several preliminary objections in their defence such as: there was no documentary evidence in support of the allegations made by the complainant; the first time the complainant approached OP -2 was on 27/09/2020 with audio issue. Upon inspection it was found that there was some problem in the motherboard and it needed replacement.   The complainant did not agree to the same and wanted refund. As per warranty terms and conditions, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded.
15. It has been stated that OP-2 is the renowned manufacturer of electronic and household items which are globally acclaimed for class and quality.  The products go through stringent quality checks and tests, trials before the actual start of commercial production .As the product was under warranty for a period of one year and in case there was any issue/problem, the OP-2 will repair the same free of cost which was offered to the complainant but the said offer was declined by him.  
16. As a goodwill gesture OP-2 had offered a refund of invoice amount in the form of coupons which was also declined by the complainant. It has been denied that there was any deficiency on part of OP-2 as the issue was duly addressed by them.  It has been denied that the Legal notice issued by the complainant was not replied. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissing the complaint.  
17. Copy of the warranty card, customer service record card dated 27/09/2020 and reply to the legal notice issued by complainant has been annexed with the written statement.
18. Rejoinder to the written statement has been filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint and denying those of the written statement.  
19. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant.  He has reaffirmed the contents of the Complaint and Rejoinder.  He has relied on the documents annexed with the complaint and got them exhibited.  Copy of the Aadhar Card of the complainant as Ex.CW-1/1, Visiting   card of OP-1 as Ex.CW-1/2, copy of the invoice No.HOG1798/2021 dated 20/09/2022 as Mark-A, Acknowledgment of replacing the defective LED as Ex.CW-1/3 , copy of invoice No.HOG1849/2021 dated 23/09/2022 is Mark as B, Tax invoice No.HOG1849/2021 dated 23/09/2022 in respect of CWTR39BN903296 as Ex.CW1/4,  Guarantee/warranty card as Ex.CW-1/5, Customer Service record Mark- C, Duty I-card of Sh.Shiv Kumar is Mark -D, Samsung Customer service report card dated 27/09/2020 as Ex.CW-1/6, copy of cancelled cheque dated 27/09/2020 as.Ex.CW-1/7, copy of driving license as Ex.CW-1/8, cash payment and receiving of purchase of LED MI brand as Ex.CW-1/9, receipt of purchase of new LED, MI brand is Mark- E and tax invoices is  Mark -F, copy of complaint dated 14/06/2020 to Commissioner of Police with four other postal receipts as Ex.CW-1/10 (Colly). Legal notice dated 12/07/2021 as Ex.CW-1/11 (colly), memory card of conversation with employees of OP-1 as Ex.CW-1/12, Hindi transcription of the conversation as Ex.CW-1/13.
20. OP-2 has got examined Sh.Sandeep Sahajenani, Authorised Representative, on their behalf.  He has also repeated the submission made in the written statement and has got the copy of the warranty policy exhibited as Ex.OPW-1/A; copy of job sheet dated 27/09/2020 as Ex. OPW/B and copy of the reply to legal notice as Ex. OPW/C.
21. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-2. We have also perused material placed on record.  The complainant has alleged that the products sold by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2 is defective. 
22. It is seen from the record that the complainant had purchased the 1st LED manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 on 20/09/2020 and the same was defective.  The 1st LED was returned and replaced and, invoice dated 23/09/2020 bearing no.HOG1849/2021 was issued as evident from invoices dated 20/09/2020 and 23/09/2020.
23. The complainant has placed on record the handwritten note dated 21/09/2020 acknowledging the return of the 1st defective LED duly signed by one namely ‘Ashu’on behalf of OP-1.  The complainant has also placed on record the Samsung Service record card dated 21/09/2020 with the remark “Visit No Sound”.
24. OP-2 in defence has stated that the complainant for the first time contacted on 27/09/2020 and thereafter the services were provided to the complainant for which customer service record card dated 27/09/2020 (Ex.CW-1/6 and Ex.OPW-1/B) was issued.  The defect detected is “No sound problem” and the repair report by the engineer is “PCB defect” it also bears the customer refused to repair and wants set replacement. This implies the product sold by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2 were defective right at the time of installation.  
25. On one hand OP-2 proclaims to be a renowned manufacturer of electronic and household items which are globally acclaimed for class and quality.  They have also claimed that the products go through stringent quality checks and tests, trials before the actual start of commercial production; the facts in the present complaint do not match with the claims of OP-2. It is also not the case of OP-2 that OP-1 is selling spurious or refurbished products of OP-2. As seen from the service record, all the three LED TVs manufactured by OP-2 were defective at the time of installation or became defective within a short span of 2-4 days.
26. It is pertinent to mention that the warranty terms and conditions filed by OP-1 (Ex.OPW-1/A) do not pertain to the product in dispute, it no where mentions the warranty terms and conditions applicable to the LED. 
27. We have also gone through the transcript of conversation between the complainant and employee of OP-1. OP-1 has failed to render services as assured. As, OP-1 is ex-parte, and the allegations made against them have remained unrebutted. The complainant has successfully proved deficiency in services qua them.
28. Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 deals with Unfair Trade practice :
(viii) Refusing, after-selling goods or rendering services to take back or withdraw defective goods or to withdraw or discontinue deficient services and to refund  the consideration thereof, if paid, within the period stipulated in the bill or cash memo or receipt or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of 30 days.
29. It cannot be in any way expected from a person who has had a bad experience with the quality of product not once but thrice to continue to buy the products manufactured by the same manufacturer and seller and forcing the complainant to accept coupons instead of refund amounts to unfair trade practice.
30. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that OP-1 and OP-2 have indulged in deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. Hence, we direct as follows :-
(a) OP-2 to refund Rs.16,500/- being the cost of the LED TV to the complainant.
(b) OP-2 to pay interest @ 7% per annum on Rs.16,500/- from the date of purchase of      1st LED i.e 20/09/2020 till realisation.
(c) OP-1 and OP-2 to pay Rs.5,000/- each as compensation to the complainant on account of mental harassment and agony.
(d) OP-1 and OP-2 to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant as cost of litigation.
The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order.Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
 
 
                (Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)
                           Member                                             President            
                

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.