DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 100 of 5.3.2019

                                      Decided on:     15.10.2020

Bahadur Singh aged 68 years, son of Sh.Gulab Singh, resident of House No.415, Street No.2, Dashmesh Colony, Patiala Gate, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Jindal Electronics through Munish Kumar & Rajeesh Kumar, inside Patiala Gate Nabha, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala.
2. Samsung Customer Service Centre, Cantt. Road, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.
3. Samsung Head Office: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector -43, DLF PH-V,Gurgaon, Haryana 1222-2, Phone +91-124-4881234.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Gagandeep Arora,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Sumeet Gupta,counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OPs No.2&3

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Bahadur Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Jindal Electronics and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that  the complainant purchased one LED 43”, model UA43M5100PRMOL,Sr.No.0A5M32N3901121 vide bill No.714 dated 18.10.2017 on installments  from OP No.1 alongwith two years warranty. After the purchase of the LED some faults shown on the screen. Complainant approached OPs for the removal of the defects but they failed to do so, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. There is thus malpractice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages; to replace the LED with new one and also to pay Rs.11000/- as counsel fee and Rs.15000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant.
3. On notice OPs appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
4. In the reply filed by OP No.1, it raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is based on false, illegal, baseless and frivolous allegations. It is also stated in the preliminary objections that the complainant purchased the LED TV on 18.10.2017 after due satisfaction. It carried one year warranty from the date of its purchase. The terms of warranty issued at the time of purchase specifically provides that “defects arising out of physical damage/electrical damage” are not covered under the warranty.
5. It is further submitted that the complainant lodged a complaint on 24.11.2017 with OPs No.2&3 with regard to broken panel of the LED TV, inspection of which  was carried out by the engineers of OPs No.2&3, it was found that the panel of the said LED TV was damaged on account of mishandling/misuse , thus repair would be done on chargeable basis only as the warranty in respect to the alleged LED TV has become void. Accordingly complainant was given a repair estimate which was not accepted by him, instead he insisted on replacement/refund of the said LED TV, which is not permissible under the terms and conditions of warranty policy and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, the OP reiterated the facts as taken into preliminary objections and after denying all other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In the reply filed by OPs No.2&3, they also raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions and deserve dismissal. It is also stated that the LED TV which was purchased on 18.10.2017 was found to be physically damaged when the service engineer visited the house of complainant and found “Display Panel Broken”, due to which the product is out of warranty. In that case the customer has to pay for the repair of the product but the complainant refused to do so. It was also found that the LED in question has been physically mishandled as its panel was found broken when the service engineer visited the premises of complainant for repair. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. No cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. The warranty period is only of one year from the date of purchase of the product and after lapse of warranty period repair is carried out on chargeable basis only. No refund of price or replacement of LED TV is permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty.
8. On merits also it is stated that there is no fault in the screen rather screen has been broken due to mishandling of the LED TV by the complainant. It is denied that the OPs failed to remove the fault in the LED TV rather complainant refused to get the LED TV repaired on chargeable basis .The OPs denied all other averments made in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA, copy of bill, Ex.C1, copy of legal notice, Ex.C2,copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Rajneesh Jindal, Prop. of  OP No.1 and closed the evidence.
11. The ld. counsel for OP No.2, tendered into evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Anup Kumar Matur, Director of Samsung India Ltd., Ex.OPC affidavit of Umesh Singla, Service Manager alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 copy of job sheet, Ex.OP2 photographs of product, Ex.OP3 copy of warranty card, Ex.OP4 copy of reply to legal notice and closed the evidence.
12. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased one LED on 18.10.2017.The ld. counsel further argued that warranty card was not issued deliberately by OP No.1.The ld. counsel further argued that LED was faulty one as it started giving trouble immediately on the purchase of the same. It is further argued that the complainant many times requested OPs for the removal of defects but they refused to do so. Hence the complaint be accepted.
14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has argued that the LED was physically damaged by the complainant and complaint was lodged on 24.11.2017. It is further argued that service engineer found that LED TV was physically damaged so panel was broken due to which it was not working. The ld. counsel further argued that the warranty was for one year and as it was physically damaged so it does not fall under warranty and complaint be dismissed.
15. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued on the same lines as argued by ld. counsel of OPs No.2&3
16. Sh. Bahadur Singh, complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the bill of Jindal Electronics  of LED TV for Rs.46,500/-dated 18.10.2017.Ex.C2 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.C3 is reply of legal notice.
17. On the other hand Sh.Rajneesh Jindal, prop. of OP No.1 has filed his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he deposed as per the written reply.. On behalf of OPs No.2&3 Sh.Anup Kumar Mathur filed his affidavit, Ex.OP2 and deposed as per the version made in the written reply.
18. Admittedly the LED was purchased vide bill Ex.C1 on 18.10.2017 for Rs.46500/- and as per the written statement filed by OPs No.2&3, the complaint was lodged on 24.11.2017.
19. It is the case of the OPs that the TV was mishandled and panel was found broken. It is mentioned that as the panel was damaged so it does not fall under the warranty. But there is no report of any engineer of OPs No.2&3 to prove that panel was broken due to mishandling of TV. Without this report there is no force in the argument of the ld. counsel of the OPs that it was broken due to negligence of the complainant.
20. So due to our above discussion, as TV became out of order within warranty period, therefore, complaint stands allowed and the OPs are directed to rectify all the defects of the LED and make it functional. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-as costs of the complaint to the complainant.  
21.           Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.10.2020

                                       Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                     President