DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 70/2019

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

1. Ms. Poonam Gautam (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pleading therein that complainant purchased on 24.04.2017 a DVD Player i.e. Samsung DVD HT-E350K/XL having serial no. ZUSN127G901744B of the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (in short OP2) from Kohli Bros (in short OP1) vide Bill dated 24.04.2017 having Invoice No. 360 @ Rs. 9,500/- which was financed by complainant through Bajaj Fin Services Ltd. and all due installments were paid to them.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that the Samsung DVD was not working properly w.e.f. 04.05.2017. The complainant complaint to OP2 vide complaint no. 4237825712 on 09.05.2017 that product is not working (showing no disc). Thereafter, engineer from OP3 visited and said that only new CD can be played on this DVD player having no scratch. Complaint nos. 42374385946, 4239599453 were lodged stating therein that the DVD was not working properly. On 10.07.2017, Mr. Rahul Sharma from OP3 told that there will be expenditure of Rs. 7,000/- on the repair of the DVD player. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated 31.07.2017 vide speed post to the OPs wherein she told about all the problems and events in the aforesaid defective product which was not working but neither OP1 and OP2 sent any reply to the aforesaid letter nor complied with which clearly shows that they have no defece in support of their aforesaid defective product. It is further alleged by the complainant that the OP1, OP2 and OP3 have been representing to the public at large through advertisement, salesmanship and assurance to public including complainant that their products including the said DVD player is a good and latest product having different features, manufactured by using state of art technology and best components etc.  Complainant further alleged that the OPs actions amounts to deficiency in selling quality products as per the standard required to be maintained for the aforesaid products and further from the acts/ conducts of OPs it amounts negligence on their part. It is also clear that the OPs are indulged in the practice of misleading, misrepresenting to the public/ consumers. The complainant claims that OPs are jointly and severally liable for the cost of the defective DVD player i.e. Rs. 9,500/- and compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. OP1is a seller, OP2 is manufacturer and OP3 is service provider. OP1 is a dealer from whom the DVD was purchased whereas OP2 is its manufacturer and OP3 is a service provider. OP2 has contested the compliant but OP1 and OP3 have chosen not to contest the same and were proceeded with ex-parte vide order dated 01.07.2019. OP2 appeared and filed its WS taking preliminary objection, inter alia, that the said product was not defective. In its WS, OP2 had denied its liability qua the complainant and stated that he is a manufacturer of the various types of electronic and household items i.e. Mobiles, LED TV, Washing Machine etc. OP2 states that “in case of damage of product or if the terms and conditions of the warranty policy are violated then the warranty policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis to be paid by the Customer.” In this regard OP2 attached the copy of the warranty policy, job sheets. Copy of the mail addressing the complainant is annexed herewith and marked as annexures showing that internal damage occasioned due to rat intrusion. Hence, there is no any kind of deficiency of service on behalf of the OP2.
3. Complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit alongwith photographs of the defective DVD player which clearly shows that there is no space for the rat to intrude in the said DVD player hence alleged deficiency on the part of OP2 that product had internal damage due to rat intrusion is a gospel lie. In her evidence complainant testified all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand, Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur, AR for the OP2 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit based on the facts narrated in its WS.
4. WAs have also been filed by both the parties. We have perused the record. Perusal of the record placed on the file by the parties would establish that the said DVD player was not functioning properly.
5. In Alpacs Reprographics Services vs Shilendra Bhanday, I (2002) CPJ 345 (TN), it is held that whenever there is defect in the product manufactured by the OP within the warranty period or else, the consumer, like complainant, is entitled for the relief.
6.  We are convinced that there is deficiency on the part of the OP1, OP2 and OP3. OPs are directed to as under:-

1. To pay/ refund the amount of said DVD player i.e. Rs. 9,500/-.
2. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation charges.

OPs shall be liable jointly and severally. This order should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest at the rate of 6% P.A. will be payable on the entire awarded amount.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 17^th June of 2022.