District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 168/2023.
Date of Institution: 15.03.2023.
Date of Order:18.08.2023.
Sharad Duggal S/o late Shri Deepak Kumar Duggal, R/o H.No. 316, sector-8, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd. through its Directors, Regd. Office at 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. Mr. Gautam Sehgal (Director), M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th -24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-5, Gurugram – 122002, Haryana.
3. Service Head India, M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th – 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-5, Gurugram-122002, Haryana.
4. Jong Bun Park (Director), M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th -24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-5, Gurugram – 122002, Haryana.
5. Chainghun Choi (Director), M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th -24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-5, Gurugram – 122002, Haryana.
6. Hak Min Lee (Director), M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 20th -24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-5, Gurugram – 122002, Haryana.
7. M/s. Savex Technologies Private Limited, through its Directors, Shed-B, bearing No.II, Kalkaji Industrial Area, Near Govindpuri Metro Station, South Delhi – 110 019. Regd. Office at: 124, Maker Chamber III, Nariman Point, Mumbai – E-mail:info@savex.in.
8. Shri Shyam Refrigeration, 5/36A, Railway Road, Faridabad – 121001 through its Prop.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
PRESENT: Ms. Rashima Duggal, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.S.Rathore , counsel for opposite party No.1to 6.
Shri Lalit Kumar Chaudhary, in person for opposite party No.7.
Opposite party No.8 – withdraw the proceedings V.O.D. 28.07.2023
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a QLED TV of 55 Inches for his personal use at his residence from
opposite party No.1 through its authorized distributor opposite party No.7. the complainant purchased a Q60A QLED 4K Smart TV having its IMEI No. 0AKZ3PBR803240 and invoice No. DE2MP2122104820 dated 03.11.2021 for an amount of Rs.76,990/- from opposite party No.7 with the complete warranty of 3 years from the date of its purchase. Soon after the purchase of above Q LED TV, about an year after the complainant had observed discoloration of TV screen, the colours of the screen were split into 2 proportions on the same screen due to which the defect was noticed and the same had been informed to the customer care service of opposite party No.1 vide their service request dated 21.01.2023 having its reference No. 4363742897. At the time of making the service request it was assured by the customer care representative that their product should be fixed/replaced within a period of 4 to 5 days from the date of request, but one of the service representative inspected the product and advice the complainant, that the product could not be repair at the location of the complainant only the product could be fixed/checked at their service center and taken the custody of the product (TV) to their service center which was still lying with the opposite party No. 8 and thereafter giving fake excuses that some parts were required to be replaced, as soon as the parts be received from the company, they will fix the TV and re-install the same. On 03.02.2023 the service engineer came with the product, when the TV was inspected by the complainant, it was totally cracked and was in a bad condition, which causes great mental agony to the complainant., it was worth mentioning that the product in question was still lying with opposite party No.8.
Feeling aggrieved the complainant had raised his issue vide e-mail dated 07.02.2023 to customer care email, but it seems that the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the legitimate claim of the complainant. The opposite parties vide their email dated 14.2.2023 they had admitted the claim of the complainant
that the TV was defective and also admitted their mistake that the TV in question was broken by their service engineer or their representatives, in lieu of which service engineer or their representatives, in lieu of which the opposite parties were offering a refund of Rs.69,890.72/- instead of the billed amount of Rs.76990/-, which was again depicting the conduct of the opposite parties, despite admitting their mistake , deficient services the opposite parties refused to replace the TV, the opposite parties were trying to escape from their prime responsibility of replacing the product under the warranty. The complainant sent a legal notice through its counsel on 21.02.2023 through regd. Post as well as through email to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) replace the Q60A QLED 4K Smart TV or to be refund back the amount of Rs.76,990/- alognwith interest @ 18% from the date of its purchase immediately.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses.
d) pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages on account of depriving the complainant from entertainment for a continues period of first complaint to till date.
2. Opposite parties Nos..1 to 6 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 6 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that answering opposite party was a manufacturing company and the opposite party No. 8 M/s. Shri Shyam was the service center and both were separate legal entity and doing their business on principle to principle basis, so any act if any on the part of the opposite party No.8, answering opposite
party could not be held liable for the same. It was submitted that the complainant had purchased the Samsung Q LED TV 03-11-2021 and the complainant contacted the ASC i.e opposite party No.8 on 21.01.2023 vide call NO. 4363742897 regarding panel issue in the LED TV and engineer visited the premises of the complainant and collected the unit for repair to the service center and repaired the same, but during the transportation after unit got damage due to inevitable instance by the opposite party No.8 as alleged by the complainant thereafter the answering opposite offered to repair/replace the part of the unit but the complainant refuse to repair and only as a good will gesture the answering opposite offered depreciated refund of 90% of the invoice value as the complainant had used the unit for more than one year and in this regards complainant had also sent reply via email but the complainant refused to accept the genuine offer of answering opposite party and on 21.02.2022 complainant sent a legal notice which was duly investigated and replied on 28.03.2023 and again offered an amicable solution but the complainant did not respond and filed the present complaint. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 6 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.7 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.7 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.7 was only the dealer/distributors of Samsung products, and were not manufacturers of the same. Therefore, the opposite party No.7 was not authorized to provide any warranty on the said product. He further submitted that the opposite party No.7 was also not the authorized service center of Samsung product and neither was the opposite party No 7 authorized to provide any repairs or service. It was submitted that as per the order placed by the complainant with the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No. 7 being the authorized dealer/distributor, provided the complainant with the said product i.e.
QLED TV bearing IMEI No. 0AKZ3PBR803240 vide invoice NO. DE2MP2122104820 dated 03.11.2021 for Rs.76,990/- and the same was received by the complainant in sealed, good and satisfactory condition and no grievance was raised by the complainant at the time of delivery of the said product. Opposite party No.7 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Shri Sharad Duggal complainant in person has made a statement that kindly permit me to withdraw the proceedings against O.P.No.8 being the service center of manufacturing company i.e opposite part No.1. Accordingly, proceeding against opposite party No.8 had been withdrawn vide order dated 28.07.2023.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Samsung India electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Others with the prayer to: a) replace the Q60A QLED 4K Smart TV or to be refund back the amount of Rs.76,990/- alognwith interest @ 18% from the date of its purchase immediately. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 50,000 /-as litigation expenses. d) pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages on account of depriving the complainant from entertainment for a continues period of first complaint to till date.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sharad Duggal , Ex.C1 – invoice, Ex.C-2 – screen of mobile, Ex.C-3 – Acknowledgement of service request,, Ex.C-4 (colly) – email dated Feb. 7,2023, Ex.C-5 – email dated Feb. 14,2023, Ex.C-6 – legal notice,
Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-11 – postal receipts, Ex.C-12 – reply to legal notice.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 to 7 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Nos.1 to 7 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Sandeep Sahjwani c/o Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor Two Horizon Center Golf Course Road, sector-43, DLF, Phase 5, Gurgaon , Ex.R-1 – warranty card,, Ex.R-2 – Customer service record card, ex.R-3 – Acknowledgement of service request, Ex.R-4 – estimate letter, Ex..R-5 - letter dated 288.03.2023.
As per evidence of opposite party No.7 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Mohit Goyal, the authorized representative of the opposite party No.7.
8. It is evident from Ex.C1, the complainant purchased a Q60A QLED 4K Smart TV having its IMEI No. 0AKZ3PBR803240 and invoice No. DE2MP2122104820 dated 03.11.2021 for an amount of Rs.76,990/- from opposite party No.7 with the complete warranty of 3 years from the date of its purchase. As per mobile screen shot vide Ex.C2, after the purchase of above Q LED TV, about an year after the complainant had observed discoloration of TV screen, the colours of the screen were split into 2 proportions on the same screen due to which the defect was noticed and the same had been informed to the customer care service of opposite party No.1 vide their service request dated 21.01.2023 having its reference No. 4363742897. As per email dated 14.02.2023 vide Ex.C5, it has beem mentioned that “with reference to your complaint regarding your samsung LED TV with Model No. QA55Q60AAKLXL. We reference to your discussion we would like to update you that we cannot process the replacement. We can provde you panel replacement. As you have denied for repair so we can refund you
Rs.69890.72/- for good will gesture, Rs.35299.55/- will be refund by Service center and Rs.34,661.17/- will be refund via DD.
9. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Hence, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 7 jointly & severally, are directed to replace the LED in question with the same model of the same price to the complainant. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 7 are also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 18.08.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
