DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 208 of 02-05-2012
Decided on 12-09-2012
Vinay Kumar, aged about 34 years s/o Sukhdev Sharma r/o Qila Road, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
M/s Computer Systems, Birla Mill Road, Backside Hotel Bahia Fort, Bathinda through its Prop./Partner.
M/s Adev Electronics, Shop No.20, Krishna Market, Bathinda.
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P).
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sukhdeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Rohit Jain, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Sh.Ishwinder Pal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one LCD 2030, having Sr. No.00124PGZA10171F, Model name LS20PUZKFLXL, make Samsung, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.424 dated 4.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.6350/-. At the time of purchasing the said LCD, the opposite party No.1 has assured the complainant that the said LCD is of best quality and there is no complaint regarding the same. The opposite party No.1 has also given two years guarantee in case of any defect and also assured for best possible services. The abovesaid LCD purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 started creating problems in its functioning as there was a line on the display which is due to the some manufacturing defect in it. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and complained regarding the defect in it. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to approach the opposite party No.2 which is the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3 and on this he approached the opposite party No.2 on 28.2.2012 and complained regarding the defect in the said LCD. The officials of the opposite party No.2 after checking the same asked the complainant that the same will be repaired but the opposite party No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.5500/- for repairing the said LCD although the same was well within the guarantee period and even in the job sheet dated 28.2.2012, the warranty status of the said LCD has been filled by the opposite party No.2 as 'Full Warranty' but the opposite party No.2 refused to provide free service/repair and demanded Rs.5500/- in cash from the complainant. The defect occurred in the said LCD is purely a manufacturing/technical defect and the said LCD is well within the guarantee period, as such the complainant is entitled to get the same repaired free of cost and is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite parties and the alleged demand of the opposite parties i.e. Rs.5500/- is totally illegal. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the said LCD with new one but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his requests. The complainant also got issued the legal notice upon the opposite party Nos.1&2 asking them to replace the abovesaid LCD with new one within the period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice but the opposite parties failed to accede to his request, rather the opposite party No.2 issued reply to the said notice on the basis of false averments that there is moisture in the said LCD although the same was never checked by them in the presence of the complainant nor his consent was obtained before opening the said LCD and if any alleged checking done that is at the back of the complainant and the alleged checking is not binding upon the complainant. The opposite parties returned the said LCD to the complainant about a week ago i.e. after keeping the same in their office for about one and half months and refused to repair the same until and unless the illegal demand of the opposite parties is fulfilled. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the defective LCD with new one with fresh warranty of two years or in alternative to refund the total amount of Rs.6350/- alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and has pleaded that it is clearly mentioned in the bill that 'goods once sold will not be taken back' and 'for repair/replacement of any product contact company's authorized Service Centre. Goods are dispatched at risk buyers'. At the time of purchasing the LCD these facts were also read out to the purchaser/complainant and after admitting the facts true and correct, he purchased the said LCD from the opposite party No.1 and put his signature on the terms of the said bill so he is bound by it. The said LCD sold to the complainant is of good quality. The complainant has not used the said LCD in proper manner and misuse the same and he is guilty for his own wrongs. The complainant never approached the opposite party No.1 anytime for any complaint, nor they demanded any amount for repair of the said LCD. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the complainant has failed to send any legal notice to the manufacturer. The better reply can be filed by the opposite party No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 nor they adopted any unfair trade practices. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation or costs of litigation or any replacement of LCD or refund from the opposite party No.1.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and has pleaded that the complainant has purchased the LCD 2030 from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 was never in the picture at the relevant time and so can neither admit nor deny if the payment was made in cash by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 or not. The product in question is manufactured by the opposite party No.3, a reputed manufacturer of the electronic goods. The product carries warranties as are enumerated in warranty card issued at the time of purchase. Conditions and stipulations contained in the warranty card are binding on both sides and no claim can be entertained much less raised beyond the said terms of the warranty. The product in question carried two years warranty regarding the parts and services mentioned in the warranty card subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. The LCD was purportedly purchased by the complainant on 4.11.2010, but the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 in Fabruary, 2012 i.e. after a gap of almost 16 months after the purchase complaining of defect of line on display on the LCD. It was represented by the complainant that set in question was within full warranty. Requisite service request form was duly prepared on 28.2.2012 and got signed by the complainant. It was specifically mentioned in the service request card that the product will be accepted for service subject to internal verification and if the product was found to be tempered, misused, components removed, cracked or liquid logged, the service of the product would not be considered under the warranty and in such case the customer would have to pay for repair service or the product would be returned to the customer unrepaired. Thereafter, the set in question was checked by the service personnel and it was found that the defect was caused by the liquid moisturization in the LED panel, which defect has obviously occurred due to customer's mishandling and was out of the warranty. The complainant was called and the reason for defect duly communicated to him and it was further informed that the estimate of Rs.5500/- had been prepared for carrying out the repair as per company list. The complainant insisted for the some discount but when the opposite party No.2 did not agree to the discount, he refused to get the said LED repaired and had taken back the same without repair. The opposite party No.2 was ready to provide service on payment. Registered letter was separately issued to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 is not at fault rather the complainant himself has refused to get the set repaired and has compounded his default by approaching this Hon'ble Forum.
4. The opposite party No.3 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.3.
5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. The LCD in question purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 started giving problems in its functioning as there appeared a line on the display which is due to the some manufacturing defect in it. The complainant complained the opposite party No.1 regarding this. The opposite party No.1 asked him to approach the opposite party No.2 which is the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3. The officials of the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that it will repair the LCD in question and demanded Rs.5500/- as repair charges although the same was well within the guarantee/warranty period and the job sheet dated 28.2.2012 also shows the warranty status of the said LCD as 'Full Warranty' but the opposite party No.2 has refused to provide free service/repair and demanded Rs.5500/- in cash from the complainant.
8. The opposite party No.1 is the dealer and it has sold the said LCD to the complainant and it has been clearly mentioned in the bill that 'goods once sold will not be taken back' and repair/replacement of any product will be done by the authorized Service Centre. At the time of selling the said LCD these terms were fully read out to the complainant and he after fully understanding signed these. Moreover, in case of any defect in the said LCD, the complainant has to approach the opposite party No.2 i.e. the authorized service Cenre of the opposite party No.3. The warranty on the said LCD was provided by the opposite party No.3. The conditions and stipulations contained in the warranty card are binding on both sides and no claim can be entertained much less raised beyond the said terms and conditions. The said product carried two years warranty regarding the parts and services mentioned in the warranty card subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. The said LCD was purchased on 4.11.2010 and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 in Fabruary, 2012 i.e. after a gap of 16 months of purchase and complained about the defect of line on display of the LCD. Service request form was duly prepared on 28.2.2012 and the complainant signed it. It has specifically mentioned in the service request card that the product will be accepted for service subject to internal verification and if the product was found to be tempered, misused, components removed, cracked or liquid logged, the service of the product would not be considered under the warranty and in such case the customer would have to pay for repair service or the product would be returned unrepaired. The said LCD was checked by the service centre and it was found that the defect was caused by the liquid moisturization in the LED panel. This defect occurred due to customer's mishandling and was out of the warranty. The complainant was called and the reason for defect duly communicated to him by the opposite party No.2 and it was further informed that the estimate of Rs.5500/- had been prepared for carrying out the repair as per company list but he insisted for some discount in the repair charges, the company did not agree to extend any discount, he refused to get the said LED repaired and had taken back the same without repair.
9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant has fully agreed to the terms mentioned in Invoice No.424 vide Ex.C2 and put his signature. He has also agreed with the terms and conditions of the service request. On internal checking it was found by the opposite parties that the defect has occurred due to the external moisturization. The complainant has not placed on file the warranty card. Sh.Hardinesh Kumar Aggarwal of M/s Adev Electronics, Krishna Market has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R2 that the service engineer has checked the said LCD and it was found that it was water logged and thus out of warranty and the defect has occurred due to the customer's mishandling. The said defect was duly communicated to the customer and he was informed that Rs.5500/- was required to be deposited to get the said LCD repaired and the same thing has been deposed by Mahesh Kumar, Service Engineer in his affidavit Ex.R3.
10. From the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file this Forum concludes that the defect occurred in the LCD due to the negligence of the complainant himself as the said product was water logged and shows liquid moisturization as such although the said LCD is within the warranty period yet the opposite parties are not liable to repair the said LCD free of cost or treat it within warranty period or replace it with new one or refund its amount. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any evidence to disprove that the said LCD is not water logged. However, the complainant can get/repaired the said LCD after paying its repair charges as the opposite party No.2 cannot deny the repair if the complainant will pay repair charges as demanded by it.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Thus this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
12-09-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
