DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1029 of 2017
Date of institution: 04.12.2017 Date of decision : 23.07.2019
Harpreet Kaur daughter of Shri Shiv Charan Singh Saini, resident of 278-L Tower, Spangle Condos, Near Dhakoli, Railway Phatak, Gazipur (Zirakpur), District Mohali 140603.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana -122202 through its Head/MD.
2. Azad Sound Service, Main Bazar, Dera Bassi 140507 through its Proprietor.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Shiv Charan, authorised representative of the complainant.
Shri Simranjit Singh Sidhu, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased Samsung LED TV Model No.UA32FH4003RMXL, SR No.0A2F3ZNJ306162 from OP No.2 for Rs.22,500/- through invoice dated 18.05.2017. Soon after installation, it was noticed that sound was not clear from all channels and as such complainant approached OP No.2 on 23.05.2017 and thereafter service engineer from OP No.1 Company attended the complaint. Defect was tried to be removed through settings of remote, but same could not be removed. No job card was prepared. On 27.05.2017 OP No.2 was again contacted for getting the defect removed. OP No.2 lodged complaint with OP No.1 in pursuance of which service engineer from OP No.1 Company again came and tried to remove the defect, but to no effect. As defect in LED could not be removed, so OP No.2 was requested to replace the LED with new one, but he again lodged complaint on 24.06.2017 with OP No.1. Two service engineers again visited in attempt of removing defect, but problem of sound has not been rectified till date. This sound emitted, when LED runs on lower or high pitch. By claiming that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the LED, which is not repairable, this complaint filed for directing OPs to refund price of Rs.22,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 18.05.2017 till date. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed.
2. In reply submitted by OP No.2, it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable because complainant has no cause of action. Purchase of LED by complainant from OP No.2 and the factum of approach to OP No.2 or to OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 23.05.2017, 27.05.2017 and 24.06.2017 are admitted. Other averments of the complaint even not denied.
3. In separate reply filed by OP No.1 it is claimed that service engineers had visited number of times for redressal of grievance projected through complaints and no fault was found. OP No.1 is still ready to carry out further inspection for removing fault, if any. Complainant is only claiming that there is noise which is not understandable and as such noise problem alleged to be of apprehension of complainant only. Every time service engineers visited for checking the set, they found the same in perfect working condition. Admittedly service engineers attended complaints on 23.05.2017, 19.05.2017, 27.05.2017 and 24.06.2017 for redressal of grievance of sound issue or of installation of req.Inst. Purchase of LED by complainant admitted.
4. Complainant in order to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter her representative closed evidence. None turned up for OP No.2 despite wait and despite grant of sufficient chance for producing evidence and as such OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte. Counsel for OP No.1 closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Anup Kumar Mathur authorised representative of OP No.1.
5. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.
6. From the contents of complaint as well as of written replies submitted by parties as well as after going through invoice Ex.C-1, it is made out that complainant purchased Samsung LED TV from OP No.2 on 18.05.2017 by paying price of Rs.22,500/-. Besides this LED TV, complainant also purchased Samsung Refrigerator from OP No.2 through invoice Ex.C-1 itself by paying price of Rs.31,700/-. No complaint regarding working of refrigerator has been lodged at any time, is a fact contended by representative of complainant and nor same denied by counsel for OP No.1. If complainant was to lodge false complaints, then she could have pointed out defects in the functioning of refrigerator even, which she chose not to do and as such in view of admissions suffered by OPs in their written replies that complaints lodged by complainant regarding sound problem of LED on 23.05.2017, 27.05.2017 and 24.06.2017, were got duly attended from the service engineers sent by OP No.1, it has to be held that complainant has raised only that grievance from which she is suffering. Counsel for OP No.1 contends that problem of sound has been settled due to which job sheets have been cancelled, but record of those job sheets, albeit, available with OP No.1 has not been produced and as such in these circumstances submission advanced by representative of complainant certainly has force that sound problem still persists. If despite three or four visits by service engineers of OP No.1, sound problem could not be cured, then certainly entitlement of complainant for replacement of LED in question with new LED of same model or of equal worth is there because complaints started to be lodged by complainant within 7 days of purchase of LED in question. No one will keep on lodging complaints of sound problem in the purchased LED unnecessarily and as such in absence of production on record any report of expert by OP No.1, it has to be held that defect of sound problem has not been removed. It was service engineers of OP No.1, who repeatedly checked the LED and as such their reports could have shown that the problem pointed out actually do not exist, but despite that reports of such experts (service engineers) have not been produced by OP No.1 and a such best evidence available has been withheld by OP No.1. In view of this, submission advanced by counsel for OP No.1 has no force that complainant should have produced on record expert report for establishing persistence of sound problem. Why a consumer should suffer for the fault of manufacturer and as such there is no need for complainant to examine any expert, particularly when available job sheets and reports of concerned service engineers withheld by OP No.1 himself.
7. After going through invoice Ex.C-1 it is made out that guarantee/warranty to be provided by Company as per conditions of guarantee/warranty. As the defect in LED erupted within 5-7 days of purchase, and as such in view of non curing of that defect, it has to be held that complainant able to establish manufacturing defect in the LED, which is causing sound problem. Guarantee/warranty is always given by manufacturer for replacement of product or of defective parts, free of cost and not of refund and as such complainant not entitled for refund of paid price amount, albeit she is entitled for replacement of LED. Complainant also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment and to litigation expenses from OP No.1 because liability of OP No.2 the seller to provide services during guarantee/warranty services is not there.
8. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint decided in terms that the same is dismissed against OP No.2, but the same allowed against OP No.1 in terms that OP No.1 will replace the LED in question with same mode and if LED of the same model not available for replacement purposes, then OP No.1 will provide by replacement an LED of equal worth. On such replacement the defective LED will be returned by the complainant to local representative of OP No.1 as may be mentioned in writing by OP No.1 to the complainant. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP No.1. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on these amounts from today onwards till payment. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
July 23, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
