DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:535 of 2010] Date of Institution : 24.08.2010 Date of Decision :02.08.2011 --------------------------------------- Ms. Deepika D/o Sh. Pargan resident of House No.4333, Mauli Complex, U.T., Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. M/s. H. S. Computers, SCO No.285, 2nd Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh through its Prop./Partner. 2. Samsung Electronics, Customer Service Centre, SCO No.5, Sector 41, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By: None for the complainant. OP No.1 already exparte. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OP No.2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Ms. Deepika has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To replace the monitor with a new one; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience. iii) To pay litigation cost of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 22.9.2007, she purchased a computer along with colour monitor from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.25,500/- vide Bill No.015 dated 22.9.2010 (copy annexed). According to the complainant, she used the said computer with utmost care and precaution. However, after some time, the monitor started giving some trouble. The screen developed one black flash on the upper portion of the screen. The complainant approached OP No.1 who advised her to approach OP No.2 for service of the monitor. Therefore, the complainant approached OP No.2 and lodged her complaint, which was endorsed at No.8415829686 dated 12.7.2010. OP No.2 sent its engineer to the house of the complainant for repair of the said monitor. However, after inspecting the said monitor, the engineer told her that there is some manufacturing defect in the monitor and it could not be repaired. Thereafter, the complainant approached OPs for number of times for replacement of the monitor but to no effect. According to the complainant, failure to replace the monitor despite the fact that it has manufacturing defect, amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP No.1 was duly served but it refused to accept the summons. As refusal was a good service, therefore, OP No.1 was ordered to be proceeded against vide orders dated 18.10.2010. 4. In the reply filed by OP No.2, it has been mentioned that that the computer and the colour monitor were manufactured by Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. and have been warranted by the said company for manufacturing defects in the material or workmanship. According to OP No.2, neither the said computer and monitor were manufactured by OP No.2 nor has it been warranted by it. In these circumstances, it is not liable to replace the monitor. So, according to OP No.2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. On 28.7.2011, when the case was fixed for remaining arguments, none appeared on behalf of the complainant and we proceeded to hear the matter on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the absence of the complainant. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for OP No.2 and have gone through the record. 7. The learned counsel for OP No.2 has drawn our attention to the relevant portion of the warranty, which reads as under: - “For Canadian Customers Only WARRANTY LIMITED WARRANTY TO ORIGINAL PURCHASER Samsung will replace this product at our discretion, subject to the terms and conditions of Samsung Service Plan, if found defective within the warranty period beginning from the original date of purchase. This Samsung Product is warranted by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CANADA INC. against manufacturing defects in materials or workmanship for the period specified. Obligation of the Original Owner. xxxxx Exclusions of the Warranty. Xxxxx To obtain warranty replacement or service, please contact SAMSUNG at: Samsung Electronics Canada Inc., Customer Service 55 Standish Court Mississauga, Ontario L5R 4B2 Canada Tel: 1-800-SAMSUNG (726-7864) Fax: (905) 542-1199 8. From the bare perusal of the above said portion of the warranty, it is apparent that the computer has been warranted by Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. and it has been specifically mentioned that to obtain warranty replacement or service, Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. (Customer Service) be contacted at the address mentioned above, which is in Canada. OP No.2 is known by the name and style of “Samsung Electronics (Customer Service Centre)”. So, OP No.2 is not the manufacturer of the computer or the monitor. Otherwise also, it is not proved from the bill that the monitor/wide screen purchased by the complainant was of Samsung make. As such, the bill does not relate to the items purchased by the complainant, as alleged. Even, there is no correlation between the two documents i.e. the bill and the warranty annexed to it. 9. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the top of this very warranty, it is mentioned “For Canadian Customers only”. So, it is very much clear that the complainant is not covered under this warranty as it only covers the Canadian customers. No warranty covering international customers has been placed on record. So, the computer purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 is not at all covered under this warranty. Thus, neither the complainant is covered under this warranty nor the OPs are manufacturers of the monitor in question. Even the computer and monitor have not been warranted by OPs. 10. In these circumstances, from the material on record, it is not proved that the computer has been warranted by OPs. So, non replacement of the monitor by them does not amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 2nd August, 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.535 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 28.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 02.08.2011 President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
