DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 20 of 13-01-2011

Decided on : 26-05-2011

Mohit Kumar Aged about 13 years S/o Dr. Krishan Kumar, minor through his father resident of H. No. 16616-A, Street No. 7, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.

..... Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech. Square Sector 43, Gurgaon 122009 Haryana (India) through its Managing Director.

2. M/s. Bhatia Electronics, SCF 1, The Mall, Bathinda through its Manager/Prop.

3. M/s Adev Electronics, 20 SRG Complex, Krishna Market, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop. Hardinesh Aggarwal.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party No. 2.

Sh. Rohit Jain, counsel for opposite party No. 3.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LCD bearing Model No. LA40C FIR MXL Sr. No. 17893zez90004681 and one DVD Model No. C370/XTL bearing Sr. No. E5986CGZ 400219v from opposite party No. 2 for cash amount of Rs. 55,000/- vide bill No. 10457 dated 27-10-2010. At the time of purchase of DVD/LCD the opposite parties gave warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. 27-10-2010. The complainant alleged that DVD was totally dead whereas LCD was having dot in its middle. The complainant filed complaint with opposite party No. 2 in the second week of December and then on 21-12-2010. An official/Engineer of the company came to the residence of the complainant where the said equipments were installed and he disclosed that LCD/DVD had manufacturing defect, but he being company official could not give in writing. The opposite parties managed a letter dated 14-12-2010 signed by Manager of opposite party No. 2 claiming that the complainant is not assisting for repair, but actual facts are otherwise. The complainant always and is still ready and willing to get the products repaired subject to the condition that the same are in proper working order. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have refused to replace the said products. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace the LCD/DVD with new one or in the alternative refund its price of Rs. 55,000/- with interest alongwith cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party No. 1 filed written reply and pleaded that while the complainant in paragraph number 5 categorically stated that he is ready and willing to get the products repaired, in paragraph Nos. 6,7 & 8 he is only insisting on the replacement of the same. The opposite party No. 1 has denied that there was dot in the LCD. In case the product was defective as has been alleged by the complainant, then the complainant would not have made complaint after a period of 2 months and more in the month of December. On the complaint made by the complainant, a team of qualified engineer was deputed to the premises of the complainant, but the complainant was not ready to assist in any manner the inspection and repair of the same in case it was required. The opposite party No. 1 has never refused the repair of the product in question. In fact, the same is covered under the warranty terms and conditions. The opposite party No. 1 is ready and willing to carry out all such necessary inspection and/or repair as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, to put the set in order in case any shortcoming is found. The offer is as per the strict terms and the warranty which shall be applicable.

3. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written reply stated that even as per the conditions mentioned in the Invoice dated 27-10-2010 issued by opposite party No. 2, the provision of warranty is by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No. 1, which has its authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No. 3 and as such, opposite party No. 2 has no liability with respect to the LCD in question. The opposite party No. 2 denied that DVD was dead and LCD was having dot in the middle. Rather at the time of sale of both the products, the complainant and his father was duly satisfied with the performance and functioning of the LCD and DVD and thereafter they had paid the consideration amount of the said products. After the sale of products, the complainant or his father had not approached the opposite party No. 2 as they were well aware that the warranty is provided by opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 3.

4. The opposite party No. 3 filed its separate written reply and denied that the DVD set was totally dead rightly from the time of its purchase or the LCD set was having Dot in middle right from the time of its purchase. The complainant lodged complaint on toll free number at Delhi on 14-12-2010. The said complaint made by Dr. Krishan Kumar was forwarded by Delhi office to opposite party No. 3 at Bathinda and it on the same day in the afternoon deputed Mr. Sandeep Engineer to visit the complainant's residence and attend to the alleged complaint. Mr. Sandeep visited the complainant's residence but Dr. Krishan Kumar did not allow the service engineer to attend to the sets in question to determine their alleged fault muchless to repair the same. He outrightly remarked that he was not interested in repair but would seek replacement and damages from the company. Under the circumstances, the Service Engineer had to return empty handed after making necessary report on the Customer Service Record Card as a result the complaint call made by the complainant's father was cancelled by opposite party No. 3 and matter reported to the company. The opposite party No. 3 at its own end sent two registered letters dated 14-12-2010 itself addressed to the complainant's father, one communication each in respect of LCD and DVD sets respectively apprising him of the visit of the Service Engineer and refusal of Dr. Krishan Kumar to permit repair of the sets in question. The opposite party No. 3 never refused to repair the DVD and LCD sets in question. Strangely, the complainant alleges in para No. 5 that he is willing to get the products repaired while in subsequent paras he demands replacement, which show malafide intention of the complainant.

5. Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.

6. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. These are the admitted facts of the parties that complainant purchased one LCD and one DVD for a consideration of Rs. 55,000/- vide bill Ex. C-2 No. 10457 dated 27-10-2010. The warranty of the said LCD and DVD is one year.

8. The complainant has alleged in para No. 5 of his complaint :-

   “That DVD was totally dead whereas LCD was having dot in its middle. The complainant filed complaint with opposite party No. 2 in the second week of December and then on 21-12-2010, an official/engineer of the company came to the residence of the complainant where the said equipments were installed and he disclosed that LCD/DVD had manufacturing defect, but he being company official could not give in writing. On the other hand, opposite parties managed a letter dated 14-12-2010 signed by Manager of opposite party No. 2 claiming that complainant is not assisting for repair, but actual facts are otherwise. The complainant always and is still ready and willing to get the products repaired subject to the condition that the same are in proper working order.”

9. On the other hand, the version of opposite party No. 3 which is the authoised repair centre of opposite party No. 1 i.e. manufacturer, is that on 14-12-2010, the complainant lodged complaint at Delhi on toll free number. The said complaint was forwarded by Delhi office to opposite party No. 3 at Bathinda and it on the same day in the afternoon deputed Mr. Sandeep, Engineer to visit the complainant's residence, but he did not allow the service engineer to attend to the sets in question determine fault muchless to repair the same. He outrightly remarked that he was not interested in repair but would seek replacement and damages from the company. Under the circumstances, the Service Engineer returned empty handed after making necessary report on the customer service record card.

10. To prove his version, the complainant has filed his additional affidavit Ex. C-3 wherein in para No. 2 he has deposed :-

    “That deponent purchased a LCD and DVD from the opposite party No. 2 through Invoice No. 10457 dated 27-10-2010 and the opposite party did not display the above mentioned goods rather packed boxes were given to the deponent and took the delivery of the packed boxes and installed the LCD and DVD through their man who failed to start the LCD and DVD.”

11. The complainant purchased the LCD and DVD on 27-10-2010 and he firstly lodged complaint with the opposite party No. 2, as reproduced above in para No. 5 of his complaint, in the second week of December i.e. after two months of the purchase of products in question. Thus the aforesaid version of the complainant cannot be believed that man of the opposite parties failed to start the LCD and DVD. Moreover, the complainant has himself admitted in para 5 of his complaint that an officials/engineer of the company came to the residence of the complainant where the said equipments were installed. The complainant has alleged that the service engineer of the opposite party No. 3 disclosed that LCD/DVD had manufacturing defect, but he being company official could not give in writing, but he has failed to prove his this version by leading any evidence whereas the opposite party No. 3 has produced on file affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Sandeep alias Jaswinder Singh, wherein he has deposed :-

    “......that the deponent is working as Service Engineer with Adev Electronics for the past more than 3 years.

    ......and the deponent was deputed to visit the complainant's residence and attend to the said complaint.

    ....That Dr. Krishan Kumar had not permitted him to examine at all the LCD set or DVD set, due to which the deponent could not check them muchless repair them. The deponent made necessary endorsement regarding refusal of Dr. Krishan Kumar on the Customer Service record maintained in the office.”

    A copy of Customer Service Record Card dated 14-12-2010 has been placed on file wherein it has mentioned Refused repair – Call cancelled.

12. The LCD and DVD has been produced before this Forum on 26-05-2011 at the time of final arguments. The working of LCD was good but there was a very small spot at the bottom of the screen i.e. size of the tip of the whole pin which is a minor defect. It cannot be termed as major or manufacturing defect i.e. beyond repair. There was no problem with regard to the functioning of the LCD. No expert evidence has been placed on file. The DVD was not working when produced before this Forum by the complainant alongwith LCD. But, non-working of DVD does not attribute to conclude that DVD had some manufacturing defect, as that may be because of the improper handling. Moreover, there is no expert evidence placed on file that DVD was not working at the time of its purchase.

13. Thus, as discussed above, the record placed on file does not prove that the products in question have any manufacturing defects. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he is always and is still ready and willing to get the products repaired subject to the condition that the same are in proper working order and the opposite party No. 3 has also shown willingness to repair the product in question. However, this Forum is of the view that some defects has occurred in his new products within a very short span of time, which are within warranty, as a result of which, under forced circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Forum.

14. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted against opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 with cost and compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 are directed to repair the LCD and DVD in question, of the complainant free of cost, to his entire satisfaction and thereafter obtain a satisfaction note duly signed by him to this effect.

    The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

26-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member