Punjab

Sangrur

CC/592/2014

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaissy Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Satbir Singh

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    592

                                                Instituted on:      28.10.2014

                                                Decided on:       01.04.2015

 

Ajay Kumar son of Shri Krishan Kumar, resident of Hareri Road, Ghumiar Basti, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Jaispy Service Centre (Authorised service centre of Samsung Television), Near CL Tower, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

2.             Samsung India Limited, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Old Gold Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Vikramjit Garg, Advocate.

For Opposite parties   :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

 

1.             Shri Ajay Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one 26’ LCD TV (model number 350) having serial number LA26C350DIMXL/18033ZN2A02689 for Rs.21,300/- from New TV Centre, Naya Bazar, Sunam vide bill number 1249 dated 18.6.2011.  It is further averred that in the month of September, 2014, the said LCD gave the screen display problem, as such the complainant lodged the complaint with the OP number 2 and described the whole of the problem, for which Op number 1 told that the complainant is required to pay Rs.450/-.  Thereafter on 4.10.2014 the complainant approached OP number 1 and requested to remove the defect, as such mechanic of OP number 1 visited the house of the complainant and after checking the LED told that there was panel (screen) problem in the LCD and further told that there are card/board problem in the LCD and the complainant requested the mechanic of the OP for removal of the defect, as such for removal of defect he demanded an amount of Rs.4790/- for replacing the said card/board.  As such, the complainant paid Rs.2000/- in advance to the OP number 1, who issued a receipt number 2524 dated 4.10.2014.  It is further averred that on 10.10.2014 the mechanic of the OP visited the OP and inserted the new card in the LCD, but thereafter the LCD again did not work.  Thereafter the mechanic of the OP number 1 took the LCD with him and assured that the same will be returned after three/four days in OK condition.  The complainant further approached OP number 1 on 14.10.2014 and requested to return the LCD, but the same was not returned saying that the engineer of the company from Patiala will visit and will further check the LCD.  Thereafter on 15.10.2014, the OP number 1 telephonically called the complainant and told to visit it and the complainant immediately approached OP number 1 who told that the card/board and panel of the LCD were not in working condition. As such for replacement of the defective parts the OP number 1 demanded Rs.14,200/- from the complainant. As such, the complainant requested the Op to refund the amount paid by him, but nothing happened. It is further averred that when the complainant delivered the LCD to the OP it was in working condition and now the LCD is totally defective. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant  has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him an amount of Rs.2000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the LCD i.e. Rs.21,300/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

 

2.             The OP number 1 did not file reply despite so many opportunities , hence defence of OP number 1 was struck of by order of this Forum on 14.01.2015.

 

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction, that the liability of the OP is under the terms and conditions of the warranty is limited to the extent to set right the product by repairing or replacing the defective parts, it is further stated that the LCD in question was purchased by Ashu Garg of Sunam, which is now out of warranty as the warranty is only for one year from the date of its purchase as the LCD was purchased on 18.6.2011.  It is further admitted that the service engineer of the OP number 1 gave estimate of repairs and charged Rs.450/- as service charges for checking of the LCD. It is stated that no expert evidence has been produced on the file by the complainant.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant purchased the LCD from New TV Centre, Sunam rather the same was purchased by one Smt. Ashu Garg. It is further denied that in the month of September, 2014 the LCD started giving display problem.   It is stated that the amount of Rs.450/- has been charged rightly for visiting to the complainant’s premises for checking of the Led in question.  It has been denied that the LCD was brought to the service centre.  The whole of the facts stated in the complaint have been denied.  It is also denied that complainant requested OP number 1 for replacement of defective parts, then OP umber 1 demanded Rs.14,200/- as alleged.  It is stated that since the complainant did not approve the estimate of repair then the question of taking his LCD to service centre of Op number 1 does not arise.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 affidavit, Ex.C-5 expert report and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.Ops/1 affidavit, Ex.OPs/2 affidavit, Ex.OPs/3 certificate, Ex.OPs/4 report and closed evidence.

 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, written reply and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             In the very beginning of the complaint, it has been mentioned that ‘the complainant purchased one 26’ LCD TV model number 350 for an amount of Rs.21,400/- from New TV Centre, Naya Bazar, Sunam vide bill number 1249 dated 18.6.2011’, but the complainant has produced on record the bill Ex.C-2, which is the name of Smt. Ashu Garg. The complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that he purchased the LED from New TV Centre, Naya Bazar, Sunam.  As such, we failed to understand how the present complaint is maintainable and how the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as the complainant has not produced any bill issued in his name regarding the purchase of LED in question.  Further the complainant has alleged that in the month of September, 2014, the defect of display arose in the LCD in question , as such he approached the OP number 1 for repair of the same, as such, the mechanic of the OP visited the premises of the complainant and charged Rs.450/- as labour charges.  It is further on the file that after checking the LCD, the mechanic of the OPs told the complainant that there are some parts defective, which requires to be replace and an amount of Rs.14,200/- will be spent for the same.  But, the complainant did not opt to get the LED repaired by spending the amount of Rs.14,200/- nor the same amount has been paid to the Ops.  Further the complainant has alleged that the LCD is lying with the OP number 1, but the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the LED is lying with the OP nor has produced any receipt showing so that the LED is with OP, as such, we are unable to go with the complainant to accept such a contention of the complainant.  In such a situation, we find no case made out of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It is worth mentioning here that since it is an old LED which was purchased in the year 2011 and the same is out of warranty, as such, we feel that the complainant can get the same repaired from the Ops by paying the charges for replacement of the spares, as such, we find no case made out against the OPs of any deficiency.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion,  we dismiss the complaint. However, the parties are left to bear their  own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 1, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member