BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 769 of 2010

Date of Institution :  20.12.2010

Date of  Decision   :  09.05.2011

Smt. Ritu Singla w/o Sh. Vishal Singla, 13-14, New Anaj Mandi, Kharar, District Mohali.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   M/s DEE KAY Vision Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 4-5, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

2]   M/s SAMSUNG, Indian Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Authorized Centre, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.H.S. Parwana, Counsel for Complainant.

OP No.1 Ex-parte.

Sh.Mahipal Biswas, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint are that the Complainant purchased one LED (T.V) Samsung 46, B 6000 from OP No.1, for Rs.1,05,000/-, vide Cash Memo No. DKR-3050, dated 10.12.2009. It was alleged that after few months of its purchase, during the subsistence of warranty, when the said T.V. started giving blurred picture with poor backup, the matter was, immediately, brought to the notice of OP No.1, on whose instance, the Complainant lodged complaint with OP No.2. As a sequel thereto, a Mechanic visited the house of the Complainant, but the fault could not be removed. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he got served a legal notice dated 23.11.2010, as a measure of last resort, calling upon the OPs either to rectify the defect in the T.V. or to replace the same, but OPs did not take any action whatsoever. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]         OP No.1 refused to accept the summons. As such, this OP was proceeded against ex-parte.

4]         OP No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the T.V. The defect in the T.V. pertains to external damage caused to the front panel of the set, on account of external excessive force having been used, which was not covered under the warranty conditions and the same can only be repaired on payment basis. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]         We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No.2 and have also perused the record.

7]         The factum of Complainant having purchased LED (T.V) on 10.12.2009 from OP No.1, after paying a total sale consideration of Rs.1,05,000/-, has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the said LED (T.V.) started giving blurred picture with poor backup. It is the case of the Complainant that he had persistently been making requests to the OPs to rectify the aforesaid defect, and had also addressed written requests to the OPs (Annexure C-2 & C-2A), to do the needful, but the OPs did not adhere to any of the complaints/written requests and finally, under compelling circumstances, he had to serve a legal notice through his counsel on 23.11.2010 (Annexure C-4), which was also not responded to by the OPs. OP No.2 has raised a plea that the LED (T.V.) in question suffered damage due to manhandling and the external damage caused to the front panel of the set was on account of excessive force having been used, which was not covered under the warranty conditions. To this effect no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record, except the self-serving affidavit of Sh.Harvinder Kumar, which is not sufficient to prove the aforesaid plea. The warranty card is Annexure C-5 on the record and its close scrutiny makes it crystal clear that the LED (T.V.) carries warranty for 12 months. 

8]         The LED (T.V.) in question was purchased on 10.12.2009 by the complainant vide Annexure C-1, referred to above. It has been averred that the defect occurred in the said LED (T.V.) after few months of its purchase and initial complaint was lodged in May 2010, followed by written requests vide Annexure C-2 & C-2A, with regard to the defect in the LED (T.V.). Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the problem in the LED (T.V.) occurred during the warranty period. 

9]         Since the defect developed in the LED (T.V) during the subsistence of warranty and the OPs were under legal obligation either to rectify the defect, free of cost or to replace the set with a new one or in the alternative, to refund the price charged for LED (T.V.), which they did not do. Therefore, in our considered view, non-repairing of the LED (T.V) amounts to deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

10]        In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the instant complaint must succeed. The same is, therefore, allowed and OPs are directed to repair the LED (T.V.) in question, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy. In the event, the LED (T.V.) seems to be defective or beyond repair, the OPs shall refund Rs.1,05,000/- i.e. the cost price of the LED (T.V) to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and costs of litigation.

11]        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.