DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Complaint Case No.: 218 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :   13.04.2010

Date   of   Decision  :   16.09.2011

Praveen Bansal, Resident of H.No.2112, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1]       M/s Sachdeva Electronics, SCO No.2415, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Prop./Authorized Person.

2]          Samsung India Electronics Ltd.,Samsung Service Centre, SCO No.5,Sector 41-D, Chandigarh, through its Incharge,

3]          Samsung India Electronics Ltd., IFCI Tower, 7^th & 8^th Floor, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/ Incharge

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Munish Kumar, Adv. for the complainant.

OP-1 exparte

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs NO.2 & 3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             The complainant has purchased Three LCDs of Samsung Company Model No.32A450 vide Invoice No.1225 from OP-1 on 27.10.2008.  The complainant has stated that at the time of purchase, OP-1 has assured him that all LCDs carried One Year Warranty in full and five years warranty on its projector/tube.  He had been assured that in case of any defect/problem in the LCDs during the currency of warranty period, the same would be replaced free of cost. 

                In June, 2009, one of these LCDs started giving problems and subsequently stopped working.  The complainant requested OP-1 to rectify the defect.  The Technical Engineer of the OPs visited the house of the complainant only after repeated requests to check the defect in the LCD.  The complainant has alleged that the Engineer of the OPs, who checked the LCD  stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the LCD, which needs rectification. Thereafter, the complainant waited in vain for the defect to be rectified by the OPs.  He was finally told that the LCD is now out of warranty period and hence, the defect can be rectified only on payment of Rs.23,213/-. 

                The complainant had also contacted OP-2 with his complaint but as his grievance has not been redressed by either of the OPs, he has filed the instant complaint stating that all OPs are jointly & severally liable to compensate him for the loss and sufferance.  The complainant has thus prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the LCD besides paying compensation and cost of litigation.

2]             After admission of complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                As none appeared on behalf of OP-1, it was proceeded exparte on 27.5.2010

                OPs No.2 & 3 have filed jointly reply.  In the preliminary objection they have said that the complaint is time barred as the warranty for the machine was only upto 27.10.2009.  The OPs have stated that the complainant had already been intimated that the machine is not under warranty and rectification/replacement will be possible only on payment.  The complainant has himself not sanctioned the repair. 

                On merits, the OPs No.2 & 3 have reiterated that the warranty was for one year and not 5 years as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has been repeatedly told that he is required to pay for the repairs. He has even been offered discount for the same.  The OPs No.2 & 3 have denied all other allegations of the complainant.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and ld.Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 and have also perused the record, OP-1 already exparte.

5]             The retail invoice placed on record by the complainant prove the purchase of LCDs.  It also shows the warranty clause mentioned therein to the following effect:-

                “Goods are under manufactures Guarantee.”

6]                No other document has been placed on record to show the time limit of the warranty for one year or 5 years, as stated by the complainant in his complaint. 

                The OPs No.2 & 3 have stated that the warranty was for One year only. 

                The LCD became defective in June, 2009.  The complainant has stated that the OPs sent their representative/engineer a number of times but the defect was not rectified.  Now when the LCD is out of warranty period, the OPs are saying that they are not liable to repair it under warranty and the complainant has to pay for the same.

                The complainant stated that he approached the OPs well within the period of warranty i.e. June, 2009.  The OPs have not placed on record any document to show that the they carried out the repairs on the defective LCD immediately on receipt of complaint from the complainant, whereas the complainant has placed on record the letters/requests send by him to the OPs time and again requesting for rectifying the defect in the LCD. 

7]                Ann.C-8 is the Estimate Approval dated 19.2.2010 for the repair of the LCD issued by OPs whereby the cost of repair has been estimate to the tune of Rs.23,213/-. 

8]                The defect in the LCD occurred during the warranty period.  Complaint regarding the defect in the LCD was also reported to the OPs within the warranty period.  Why did the OPs not repair the LCD in warranty period itself. The stand of the OPs that since the warranty has now expired, hence the LCD would be repaired on payment only, is not tenable. 

9]                The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indochem Electronic and Anr. Vs. Additional Collector of Customs, A.P., (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721 has   held :-

“Extension of warranty period – When inferable – Conduct/representation of promisor to meet requirements of promisee as covered under warranty, despite expiry of period of warranty – Intention of parties can be gathered from surrounding circumstances and contract itself.

10]            So, as per the Hon’ble Apex Court, if the question of defect had arisen during the period of warranty, then the grievance of the complainant, would be redressed despite the period of warranty having coming to an end.  The complainant has approached the OPs well within the warranty and his complaints for the defect in the LCD had been continuing since then.  The Ops have not been able to rectify the defect and hence, cannot now come up with the objection that the defect would be rectified only on payment.  It seems they are unable to remove the defect.

11]            In view of the above        facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the deficiency on the part of the OPs is proved as they failed to repair the LCD within warranty period. Therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to jointly & severally replace the LCD of the complainant with a new one of the same model & configuration. In case the LCD of same model & configuration is not available with the OPs, they shall give another LCD of another model & configuration acceptable to the complainant and charge the difference in price, if any, from the complainant.

                The OPs are also jointly & severally directed to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation.   

        This order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.  After compliance, The file be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced

16.09.2011                                                                              

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER