Haryana

Ambala

CC/417/2017

Smt Rajni Bali - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ikon Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 417 of 2017

                                                                      Date of Institution         : 28.11.2017

                                                                      Date of decision    : 20.08.2018

 

 

Smt. Rajni Bali w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, resident of H.No. 52, Kamal Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

    ……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  IKON Electronics, SCO,19-20 Gulati Market, Jagadhri Road, near K.D.Hospital, Ambala Cantt through its authorized signatory.

2.  M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                  

         

 

Present:        Sh. J.S.Bajwa, counsel for complainant.

 OP No.1  already ex parte v.o.d. 15.01.2018.

 Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for Op No.2.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased a LED TV make “SAMSUNG” model No. HO1K3ZEF600750 (40 inches) from OP No.1 with one year warranty vide invoice no.5850 dated 05.01.2016 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the finance scheme of Bajaj Finance Ltd. under the loan agreement no.4400CD18791612 dated 06.01.2016. Just after 15 days of installation at the house of complainant, the LED, started giving trouble, i.e. Not giving proper picture, screen went partially black, disturbed sound and soon after noticing these problems, the complainant reported the matter to OP No.1 who got the LED of complainant checked through his own person. The person sent by OP No.1 after checking the LED told the complainant that he removed all the defects, though the defects were remain un-removed. The complainant has been requesting OP No.1 since Feb 2017 but the OP No.1 has been assuring the complainant that the matter will be solved within short time. After continuous reporting of complainant, the OP No.1 in the month of Aug. 2016 sent his own person to check the LED of complainant and do the needful, but the representative sent by OP No.1 told the complainant that the sold piece of LED is defective and it cannot be repaired. The complainant also served the OP No.1 with a registered/AD legal notice dated 03.08.2017. Because of the attitude of OPs, complainant has to harass and suffered mental, physical and monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Registered notice issued to Op No.1 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.01.2018. Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting that the complainant  in regards  to his complaint has approached to the company on 22.08.2017 vide complaint no.4243579910 after approximate one year and eight months from the date of purchase and reported some problem in his unit. The engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant and requested to complainant to allow internal diagnose  the unit, because as per the bill of unit provided by complainant, it do not carry any model/serial  sticker and also told to complainant that the repair/diagnose for the alleged unit shall be on chargeable basis i.e. service charges will be applicable as the company provides one year warranty and in the case of complainant, the one year period has been expired, but the complainant did not allow it. The engineer of the company  requested to the complainant for several times for give the permission to internally diagnose the unit,  but complainant  refused the same and become adamant and started demanding  replacement of the unit. After that the complainant never approached to the OP Company and directly filed the present complaint. It is submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per company policy. The OP No.2 is always ready to provide services to complainant as per conditions of warranty for the unit  manufactured and sold by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. but the complainant  is adamant not get his unit repaired/checked. So there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-7 and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-5 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard both the counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is proved on the file that complainant had purchased a LED TV make “Samsung”, model no. HO 1K3ZEF600750 (40 inches) from OP No.1 vide invoice no.5850 dated 05.01.2016 Annexure C-2 & C-3 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the finance scheme of Bajaj Finance Ltd. vide loan agreement No.4400CD18791612 dated 06.1.2016 as per Annexure C4.

The counsel for complainant is relied upon the Local Commissioner report who was appointed by this Forum v.o.d. 15.06.2018. The report of L.C. is as under:-

“The inspection of above said LED was carried out on 23.07.2018 at 9.30 A.M. in the presence of Smt. Rajni Bali, Complainant and Mr. Jatinder Sharma, representative of Samsung service centre. No one came from IKon electronics.  After inspection it was found that there is no Sr. number and model number on the back of LED. Also there is no Sr. Number and model number is mentioned in the bill. Only size and make is mentioned in the bill Sr. No. and model no. must be there in the bill as per rule. The dealer wants to hide something by not mentioning Sr No. and model no. in the bill. There is no physical damage to the LED. But the LED is not working. It is not getting on. It is totally dead. As per complainant it stops working after purchase of almost 15 days. It was purchased on 5 Jan. 2016. There is some problem in the card and panel of LED which can be repaired but in equal to the price of the new one. As per Samsung representative, there is no record of his LED in their company as Sr. No.  is not mentioned. Local bracket is installed to hand the LED instead of Samsung bracket. Also the box of LED is not given to the customer, which has the Sr. No. and Model No. The parties present at the time of inspection were satisfied with the inspection  of LED”.

 It is clear that the dealer has sold the LED to the complainant without serial number and without model number and OP No. 2 has also relied upon the Local Commissioner report. As per the L.C. report there is no record of the LED serial number and model number mentioned in the bill. It is clear that the OP No.2 has not sold the LED in question or manufactured by OP No.2 i.e. Samsung Company.  Therefore, it is clear that that the dealer has sold the LED to the complainant of other model then the model of Samsung without Sr. No. or model no. which is tantamount that the dealer is deficient in providing service and also indulged in the unfair trade practice by falsely representing the sold goods to the complainant as of Samsung company which invokes the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) the goods or service

According to the Section 2 (1)(d) Sub Section r  as under :-

1. The practice of making any statement, whether  orally or in writing or by visible representation which:-

1. falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade.
2. falsely represents  that the goods  or services have sponsorship, approval, performance,  characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have.

(x)     gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person.

In this way, the dealer has falsely misrepresented the goods manufactured by Samsung Company and also indulged in a malpractice besides deficient in providing service as well as in unfair trade practice and also sold the defective goods to the complainant as per the L.C. report. Accordingly, the present complaint is liable to be accepted and same is hereby allowed with cost assessed Rs.5,000/- and OP No.1 is directed to pay the LED amount of Rs. 40,000/- as per Annexure C-2 alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of compliant till its realization subject to return the LED with its accessories to the Dealer/OP No.1 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony & harassment. The Op No.1 is further directed to discontinue such kind of unfair trade practice not to repeat in future and comply with the above said directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 Announced on : 20.08.2018

         

 

 

               Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                        (D.N. ARORA)

Member                                     President