Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/761

Ashu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dee Kay Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

R.D.Chaudhary

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 761 of 10.11.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 26.05.2015

                    

Ashu aged 45 years daughter of Sh.Manal Dass, Resident of 513, Sita Nagar, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. M/s Deekay Electronics, Video Market, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Prop./Partner Authorized Signatory.

2. Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech. Square, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122022.

 

…..Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:      Sh.Rakesh Gandhi, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte

                   Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate for OP2

 

 

ORDER

 

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Ashu d/o Sh.Manal Dass, Resident of 513, Sita Nagar, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s Deekay Electronics, Video Market, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Prop./Partner Authorized Signatory (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the LED with a new one, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony, to pay Rs.22,000/- as legal expenses and to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs to the complainant alongwith any other additional or alternative relief.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased one LED TV 46” duly manufactured by OP2, vide bill no.3429 dated 30.10.13 with a warranty of one year and the carrier of the OPs delivered the said LED TV at home of the complainant after its purchase. At the time of installation of the said LED TV, the complainant noted that there was some scratches/dent on the middle of LED TV and were visible with naked eye. The complainant immediately pointed out to the representative of the OPs and he informed that they will rectify or remove the same otherwise they will change or provide new LED TV to the complainant. On 2.11.13 the complainant again approached OP1 and apprised the situation to OP1, who informed that due to Diwali Rush it will take some time. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP1 number of times, but the OPs linger on the matter with one and other pretext. Complainant also made written representation on 3.1.14 to the OPs and final reminder on 31.7.14, but all in vain. Since LED TV is in warranty period and moreover there are manufacturing defects in it. As such, Ops are bound to removed the defect from the LED, as the Ops had supplied defective LED TV to the complainant, but the OPs failed to remove defect from the said LED TV. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OP1, which was served. But despite service of the notice none had come present on behalf of OP1. As such, OP1 is proceeded exparte, vide order dated 2.12.14.

4.                On notice of the complaint, OP2 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law; the complainant has concealed the true facts from the Forum; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the answering OP to file the present complaint. Further submitted that OPs never denied after sales services to the complainant, they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, but on chargeable basis as the LED TV was out of warranty being physically damaged. The LED TV was installed at the premises of complainant on 31.10.13 and demo was given. The complainant was satisfied with the installation and demo and duly signed the customer, satisfaction report (CSR). On 20.11.13 service engineer visited the complainant on the complaint lodged with answering OP. During visit, the service engineer found that scratches on the panel of the LED TV which were caused by some physical act. As physical damage is not covered under warranty and repair of display panel is on chargeable basis. The estimate of display panel was given to the complainant, but was not approved. The obligation of the answering OPs under warranty is to set right the LED TV by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The performance of the product depends upon the physical handling of the product. The problem of scratches/dent on the panel of LED TV as alleged in the complaint has occurred due to physical mishandling/damage of the LED TV by the complainant of her family members. The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement for replacement of LED TV with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. The complainant claims the said LED TV to be suffering from defects, therefore, it is the legal duty under the discharge of burden, upon the complainant to establish the same by Technical Expert Report, but no such report has been adduced by the complainant before this Forum, hence in the absence of any such technical expert report the complaint of the complainant cannot be decided as per the provisions of C.P.Act, 1986. Further submitted that the OP has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, but on chargeable basis as the LED TV was out of warranty. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ms.Ashu Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP2 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Shriniwas Joshi, Senior Manager/Authorized Signatory Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also attached documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

6.                Ld. counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased from OP1 one LED TV 46” duly manufactured by OP2, vide bill no.3429 dated 30.10.13 with a warranty of one year and the carrier of the OPs delivered the said LED TV at home of the complainant after its purchase. At the time of installation of the said LED TV, the complainant noted that there was some scratches/dent on the middle of LED TV and were visible with naked eye. The complainant immediately pointed out to the representative of the OPs and he informed that they will rectify or remove the same otherwise they will change or provide new LED TV to the complainant. But the Ops failed to do the needful, despite repeated requests of the complainant and reminders.

7.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OP2 argued that OPs never denied after sales services to the complainant, they are still ready to provide service to the complainant, but on chargeable basis as the LED TV is out of warranty being physically damaged. The LED TV was installed at the premises of complainant on 31.10.13 and demo was given. The complainant was satisfied with the installation and demo and duly signed the customer, satisfaction report (CSR). Further argued that the obligation of the answering OPs under warranty is to set right the LED TV by repairing or replacing the defective parts only. The problem of scratches/dent on the panel of LED TV as alleged in the complaint has occurred due to physical mishandling/damage of the LED by the complainant of her family members. Further argued that the complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement for replacement of LED TV with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed.

8.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OPs and also perused the entire record placed on file.

9.                It is evident that complainant purchased one LED TV 46” duly manufactured by OP2, vide bill no.3429 dated 30.10.13 with a warranty of one year and the carrier of the OPs delivered the said LED TV at home of the complainant after its purchase. Further as per the averment of the complainant, after some times of installation the complainant noticed some scratches/dent on the middle of LED TV and were clearly visible. As per the deposition of the OPs the service engineer visited the complainant on 20.11.13 and the job card duly signed by the complainant has not been produced before the Forum. Thereafter the complainant as averred again and again approached the OPs to replace the defective LED TV with the new one, but the OPs failed to do anything. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for complainant averred that OPs with intention to cheat the complainant gave the assurance that they would provide best service after sale, believing the representation of OPs to be true the complainant agreed to purchase an LED 46” duly manufactured by OP2. But the Ops failed to give due service to the complainant as per the assurance given by them. By not providing due service to the complainant, the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.

10.              Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to repair the LED TV of the complainant without levying any charges, as the defect was brought to the notice of OPs, within warranty period. Further Ops are directed to pay Rs.2500/-(Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                             (S.P.Garg)                               (R.L.Ahuja)

                               Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:26.05.2015 

Hardeep Singh