| ORDER | District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran (Punjab) Consumer Complaint No: 45 of 2015 Date of Institution: 24.08.2015 Date of Decision: 26.04.2016 Ravinder Singh @ Arvinder Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of Village: Khara, Tehsil & District Tarn Taran. …Complainant Versus - Harjit Singh and Company, Near Mangal Bakery, Adda Baxar, Tarn Taran through its proprietor.
- Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, having its Registered Office at A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its M.D.
…Opposite Parties. Complaint Under Section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the complainant Sh. H.S.Sandhu, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 Sh.Gaganpal Singh, proprietor. For Opposite Party No.2 Sh.G.S.Pannu, Advocate. Quorum: Sh. A.K.Mehta, President Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member Sh A.K.Mehta, President - Complainant Ravinder Singh alias Arvinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against (i) Harjit Singh and Company, Near Mangal Bakery, Adda Baxar, Tarn Taran through its proprietor (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Party No.1’) and (ii) Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, having its Registered Office at A 25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044 through its M.D (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Party No.2’) on the allegations of deficiency in service and for directing the Opposite Parties to deliver the LED TV having Model 40H 4200 in place of old delivered model or be directed to return the price of the LED TV to the complainant amounting to Rs.45,900/- alongwith Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation for harassment, etc. and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one Samsung LED TV having Model 40H 4200 from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice No. 2347 dated 16.01.2015 for Rs.45,900/-; that at the time of purchase of LED TV, the Opposite Party No.1 had shown the LED model No. 40H 4200 which is the latest model of Opposite Party No.2 of the LED and after demonstration, the complainant had paid the total price money to Opposite Party No.1; that Opposite Party No.1 delivered the LED TV set through his employee at the residence of the complainant and when the employee of Opposite Party No.1 left the house of the complainant, then the complainant noticed that the LOGO on the TV was written as 2014 New instead of Series 4-4200 as affixed on the LED, demonstrated by Opposite Party No.1 and even on the box of the LED the words ‘Series 4 4200’ were written on it. After noticing these differences, the complainant became doubtful regarding the LED TV and immediately contacted Opposite Party No.1 and told about his doubt, but Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that there was no difference between two models of LED. The complainant also noticed some over writings on the bill at the point where model of the LED was written by Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that there is no difference between the LED shown to the complainant and the LED delivered to the complainant, but this does not satisfy the complainant. The complainant told Opposite Party No.1 that he has committed unfair trade practice with the complainant by not delivering the LED TV which the complainant asked for and paid for, but Opposite Party No.1 did not redress the grievance of the complainant and refused to agree with the request of the complainant; that the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 many times, but to no affect; that the act and conduct of Opposite Party No.1 amounts to unfair trade practice, inefficiency and inadequacy in service and harassment by not delivering the product which the complainant asked for and prayed for and which was demonstrated to the complainant. Hence this complaint was filed.
- After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 appeared in person and filed the written reply contesting the complaint. It was admitted that the LED TV was purchased by the complainant from answering Opposite Party No.1. It was however, asserted that the complainant thereafter approached Opposite Party No.1 and threatened him for dire consequences, if Opposite Party No.1 refused to replace the LED TV or to return the price of the LED TVamounting to Rs.45,900/- alongwith interest upto date. Opposite Party No.1 requested the complainant that Opposite Party No.1 has sold the LED TV of model Series 4 2014 on 16.1.2015 and there is no difference in model 40H 4200 from the LOGO as affixed on the LED and no cause of action arose against Opposite Party No.1 as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. All other allegations leveled in the complaint are totally wrong, incorrect, and specifically denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made for being false and frivolous.
- Opposite Party No.2-Samsung appeared separately through counsel and filed separate written reply contesting the same by taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant has not sought the permission from this Forum under section 11(2)(b) of the Act before instituting the complaint against answering Opposite Party; that the complainant has not alleged any specific allegation against the answering Opposite Party and he has filed the complaint on the basis of vague, evasive and false allegations. As per the information received by answering Opposite Party from Opposite Party No.1, the LED TV Model 4200 has been sold and delivered to the complainant and it is the same model which was shown to the complainant. It is the same model of LED TV delivered, which is mentioned in the bill. The LED TV of the complainant is perfectly working as the complainant has not alleged any defect in the LED TV. Moreover, if there is any difference of model demonstrated and the model actually delivered and billed to the complainant, answering Opposite Party is only liable for ‘after sale service’ with regard to the product in question. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party or its service centre has never refused to render services with regard to the LED TV in question, hence there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of LED TV with damages and litigation costs. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert. On merits, it was asserted that as per the information received from Opposite Party No.1, LED of same model has been delivered to complainant which was shown in demonstration by Opposite Party No.1. It is wrong and denied that LED TV of model series 4 2014 new and model 40H 4200 are different. In the invoice, model of LED is mentioned as 40H 4200 and the same model LED TV was delivered to the complainant as per the information provided by Opposite Party No.1 to answering Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.2 has got confirmed from Opposite Party No.1 that the model mentioned in the invoice is 40H 4200 and LED TV of the same model has been delivered to the complainant. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect with a prayer to dismiss the complaint as the same is false and frivolous.
- Parties were given adequate opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their respective case. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, photo copy of the box of TV Ex.C2, photo copy of LED TV Ex.C3, photo copy of retail invoice Ex.C4, photo copy of delivery slip Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
- In order to rebut the case of the complainant, Sh.Gaganpal Singh, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed his evidence. Similarly, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sunil Bhargava, General Manger Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for complainant, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 as well as Sh.Gaganpal Singh, Opposite Party No.1 in person and have gone through the file.
- Ld.counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant purchased LED TV in question for Rs.45,900/- from Opposite Party No.1 and at that time, the complainant was told by Opposite Party No.1 that the LED TV in question belongs to Model 40H 4200, but Opposite Party No.1 delivered the different LED TV to the complainant because the delivered LED TV was having sticker on it which reads 2014 New LED TV and it clearly shows that the delivered LED TV was different from the LED TV which was shown to the complainant at the time of its purchase. He further contended that Series 4 4200 LED TV is latest LED TV, but the delivered LED TV is old TV and is also cheaper than Series 4 4200 LED TV. Ld.counsel for the complainant further contended that complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 many a times, but Opposite Party No.1 refused to replace the LED TV and this conduct of Opposite Party No.1 amounts to unfair trade practice and as such, the complaint is required to be allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is required to be directed to replace the LED TV with LED TV which was demonstrated to the complainant at the time of purchase or in the alternative, the Opposite Party No.1 is required to be directed to refund the price of the LED TV alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
- Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and Sh.Gaganpal Singh, proprietor of Opposite Party No.1 contended that the complainant was shown Series 4-4200 LED TV of 40 Inch screen and the same LED TV was delivered to the complainant. He further contended that the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 and told about his grievance and the complainant was politely told that the delivered LED TV and the LED TV shown to the complainant at the time of purchase are same without any difference, but the complainant started abusing and threatening Opposite Party No.1 with dire consequences and lateron, filed this false and frivolous complaint and as such, the complaint is required to be dismissed.
- After going through the record of the case, evidence and documents produced by the parties on file, this Forum does not find force in the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased one LED TV from Opposite Party No.1 and at the time of purchase of LED TV, he was shown Series 4-4200 LED TV of 40 Inch screen i.e. Model 40H 4200. The contention of the complainant is that he was delivered a different LED TV than the LED TV shown to him at the time of purchase. The contention of the complainant is that he was shown model 40H 4200 LED TV whereas he was delivered LED TV having sticker ‘2014 New’ LED TV (Ex.C3), whereas the contention of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant was delivered the same LED TV which was shown to him at the time of purchase of LED TV. The complainant has produced only print copy of box of LED TV (Ex.C2) and sticker (Ex.C3) on the file, but no other evidence has been produced on file that the delivered LED TV is different from the LED TV which was demonstrated or shown to him at the time of purchase of LED TV. On the other hand, it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased Series 4-4200 LED TV and even on sticker Ex.C3 affixed on the LED TV, the words Series 4 are written. Moreover, the contention of the Opposite Parties is that all the TVs starting with digit ‘4’ are Series 4 TVs i.e. No.4200 in the case in hand belongs to series 4 as number starts with digit ‘4’. Moreover, 40H means 40 Inch screen TV and the delivered TV is Series 4 TV as its number starts with digit ‘4’ and Series 4 is also written on the sticker affixed on the LED TV. Moreover, it is for the complainant to prove on file that the delivered LED TV is different from the LED TV which was demonstrated to him but, no such evidence has been produced on the file except the oral evidence. As such, it can be safely held that the complainant has failed to prove his case on file.
- In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to the records.
Announced in open Forum. Dated: 26.04.2016. (Jaswinder Kaur) (A.K.Mehta) Member President | |
