Haryana

Panchkula

CC/236/2015

manoj sharma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AHUJA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	236 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	26.04.2016

                                                                                          

Manoj Sharma s/o Sh.Anant Ram Sharma, R/o Verma Cottage, Nigam Vihar Anji, Solan, P.O. Barog Railway Station, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.

 

                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

 

 

1.       M/s Ahuja Enterprises, Shop No.14, Shopping Complex, Chandi Mandir Cantt. Panchkula, Haryana through its proprietor.

2.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gudgaon, Haryana 122002, through its Principal Officer.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

                             Op No.1 already ex-parte.

Mr.Puneet Tuli, Adv., for the Op No.2.                        

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Manoj Sharma-complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Samsung LED 40 inch TV vide bill No.3027 (Annexure C-4) dated 16.06.2014 for an amount of Rs.48,414/- from the Op No.1 with a warranty of one year under the influence of various advertisement of Ops. After the purchase of LED, it suddenly stopped functioning. The complainant made a complaint to the customer care on 10.06.2015 vide complaint No.8464571688 but no action was taken by the customer care. Thereafter, the complainant requested many times to customer care to replace the TV but to no avail. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure C-1 & C-2) requesting the Ops to replace the TV with new one or to repair the same without any charges but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice issued to the OP No.1 through registered post and the same has not been received back served or unserved. It is deemed to be served. The Op No.1 is proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.12.2015.
3. Initially the Op No.2 was not appeared and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.12.2015. Thereafter, the Op No.2 filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble State Commission in which the ex-parte order dated 04.12.2015 has been set aside qua OP No.2 subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3000/-. The Op No.2 paid the cost of Rs.3000/- before this Forum and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections and submitted that the bill dated 16.06.2014 is totally false and the installation of the TV set has already taken place on 19.05.2014. It is submitted that on 19.05.2014, the demo & installation was required and the same was done. It is submitted that on 09.06.2015, the customer did not have any warranty document to prove his warranty. It is submitted that the main PCB was defective and estimate of Rs.7751/- was given to the complainant who refused to pay for the same. It is submitted that the TV set was manufactured by the Op No.2. It is submitted that the TV set was not within warranty period which was also informed to the complainant but he refused to pay for the repair, therefore, there was no occasion for replacement. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.2 has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Op No.2 and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a Samsung LED 40 inch TV vide bill No.3027 (Annexure C-4) dated 16.06.2014 for an amount of Rs.48,414/- from the Op No.1 with a warranty of one year. The grievance of the complainant is that the LED TV was not functioning properly and he made complaints with customer care and requested many times to repair or replace the LED TV without any charges as the LED TV was within warranty period but the customer care did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, the Op No.2 submitted that the bill dated 16.06.2014 is false and the installation of the TV set has already taken place on 19.05.2014. The Op No.2 checked the LED TV who found that the main PCB was defective and estimate of Rs.7751/- was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to pay for the same.
8. From the perusal of documents and evidence on record, it reveals that the OP No.2 has taken a stand that the bill is false as TV set was installed on 19.05.2014 but the Op No.2 has not place on record any document which shows that the bill dated 16.06.2014 is false. The bill dated 16.06.2014 was issued by the Op No.1 who did not appear to contest its part and proceeded ex-parte, therefore, it is the duty of the Op No.2 to prove that the bill is false or not. Another stand of Op No.2 is that the LED was out of warranty and it gave an estimate of Rs.7751/- to the complainant for repair. The Op No.2 being a company/manufacturer has its record but it failed to place on record any document which shows that the LED TV was out of warranty. The Op No.2 in its written statement submitted that the main PCB was defective and estimate of Rs.7751/- was given to the complainant. The main PCB is a major part in the LED TV and defect in main PCB shows the manufacturing defect in the LED TV within warranty period. The stand of the OpNo.2 is that the TV set was installed on 19.05.2014 is not tenable. How is it possible that the TV was purchased on 16.06.2014 and installation of TV set has taken place on 19.05.2014 prior to purchase of the same.
9. From the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops are directed as under:-

1. To replace the LED TV with new one of same model, make and cost to the complainant.

 

(ii)     To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

 

The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

26.04.2016      S.P.ATTRI        ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER        MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

 

 

                                                          DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT