DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Kiran Kumari, H.No. 505, Sector 15, Panchkula.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

1.   M/s Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th floor, Tower ‘C’, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122 009, Haryana, India.

2.   M/s Bhagat Electronics, Shop No. 160-161, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh (U.T).

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Ram Chand, Authorized Agent of Complainant.

           Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

           Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant had purchased a Samsung 46” LED from Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs.1.24 lacs vide Invoice No. 10955, dated 16.10.2012. At the time of its installation a defective spot was noted on the left side bottom of the panel which was brought to the notice of the representative as well as the dealer immediately. The Complainant was told that it was a thumb print which would vanish within a few days. The spot did not disappear. The matter was again brought to the notice of both the Opposite Parties and the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties for replacement of the defective piece. After negotiations the Opposite Party No.1 agreed to replace the product within a week. However, as no positive response was received thereafter, the Complainant filed the instant complaint, with a prayer for replacement of the defective LED or refund, besides compensation and costs of litigation.

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte on 18.02.2013.

3.          Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has maintained that when the service engineer visited the premises of the Complainant, the Complainant did not grant permission to the person to carry out repair. It is stated that the answering Opposite Party is still ready and willing to carry on repair of the part in terms of the warranty, free of charge. Opposite Party has also maintained that there is no manufacturing defect in the T.V. set. The Complainant has also received a free gift in the form of a Samsung Tab2 (Tablet) along with the T.V. set at the time of purchase. Opposite Party has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          The Complainant also filed replication wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted. It is asserted that there was a manufacturing defect in the product which was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties and hence replacement only was needed. The Complainant has also placed on record e-mail dated 18.01.2013 (Annexure-4), wherein the following has been written:- 

“We are replacing the entire unit rather than to repair it.”

          The Complainant has thus maintained that Opposite Party No.1 has concealed material facts.  Once they have offered for replacement they cannot now state that they are only willing to repair the product. The Complainant has therefore prayed that the contentions of the Opposite Party No.1 be rejected and the complaint be allowed with costs.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the Authorized Agent of Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 (Opposite Party No.2 being ex-parte) and have perused the record. 

7.          The allegations of the Complainant are with regard to a defect in the LED T.V. purchased by her from the Opposite Party No.2. This defect was found at the time of installation. Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has maintained that they are willing to repair the product as per the warranty free of cost. However, the Complainant has brought our attention to Annexure-4 which is an e-mail from the Opposite Party No.1, relevant excerpt of which has already been reproduced above. In view of above said e-mail and non-compliance of its offer by the Opposite Party No.1 we are of the considered opinion that there is a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The offer is dated 18.01.2013 which is after the filing of the instant complaint and the replacement has not yet been made.

8.          Accordingly, we allow this complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to immediately replace the LED in question with a new one of the same make and model. The Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant. 

9.          This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to refund the invoice price of the LED and compensation along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order, till actual payment, besides the costs of litigation.

10.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

13^th June, 2013                            

Sd/-

   (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER