Delhi

North East

CC/61/2022

Veena - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ldt. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.61/22

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Veena, Wife of Tejbir Singh, R/o : A1/307, Nand Nagri, Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., At: C-951, Jahangir Puri, Delhi 110033   Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., At: 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

10.03.2022 19.07.2023 10.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35  of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainants

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that Complainant was having a LED TV 32” T4500 manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 2. The said LED was not working properly during the guarantee period. It is her case that she made a complaint regarding not working properly of the said LED TV. Thereafter, engineer from the company visited the house of the Complainant and said that the panel of the said LED was defected and he put a request for the panel to the Opposite Party No. 2. It is her case that after few days, a call was received from the Opposite Party No. 2 and they told that the company does not have the panel and advised to take the coupon instead of the defected LED. On advised of the Opposite Party No. 2, Complainant took the said coupon. After that on 08.12.2021, Complainant went to Opposite Party No. 1 for purchasing the LED model No. T4500 32”, but they told that T4500 was old version and T4350 was updated version and having more features. Thereafter, on the information given by the Opposite Party No. 1, Complainant took the model no. T4350 LED by giving the coupon of                Rs. 18,000/- along with cash payment of Rs. 1,000/-. It is her case that when Complainant connected her phone with the said LED via Bluetooth then it was not connected. Thereafter, Complainant called customer care to know about how to connect then they told that there was no facility of Bluetooth in this model. After that Complainant lodged a complaint about this to the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 agreed to take back the said LED and further told that either you take back your coupon or take another LED. It is her case that she requested the Opposite Party No. 1 to either give LED model No. T4500 or could return the money but Opposite Party No. 1 refused to do this and told that they did not have order from the Opposite Party No. 2 regarding refund of the money. Thereafter, Complainant received a call from the head office of the Opposite Party No. 1 and they asked to deposit the said LED and when Complainant asked them for money then they further said that official of showroom would hand over the LED T4500 to the Complainant. On 02.01.2022, Complainant deposited the LED T4350 at the shop and then shopkeeper advised to taken LED T4450 by saying that both the models are same but their numbers are different for which Complainant had to pay            Rs. 2,000/- extra but it would be available after few days. After that the Complainant compared both the LED’s by calling to Opposite Party No. 2 and they told that both LED’s are different. It is her case that she requested either to give LED T4500 or refund the money but they refused both the things and said that now this model was not in manufacturing by the company. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay the amount of the said LED TV as per today’s price or repair/rectify her LED TV or to give her new TV of same model. Complainant also prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 1 to provide the LED TV model no. T4500.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 to contest the case despite service of notice. Hence, Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.07.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are false. It is stated that the Complainant purchased LED TV on 22.11.2020 from Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/-. It is stated that the Complainant approached Opposite Party No. 2 on 16.11.2021 i.e. after using the said LED for more than 11 months. The Complainant was having some Display Issue. Then the engineer of the Opposite Party visited the house of the Complainant on 19.11.2021. After inspection, it was found that the panel was faulty and the same required to be replaced. At that time the said part was not available and Opposite Party No. 2 offered a refund coupon of Rs. 18,000/- to the Complainant. With the said refund coupon the Complainant purchased another Samsung LED TV on 08.12.2021 from Opposite Party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/-. The Complainant made request to Opposite Party No. 2 for installation of the TV. The engineer of the Opposite Party No. 2 visited the house of the Complainant and he was told that she had already returned the said product to the Opposite Party No. 1. The intention of the Complainant was mala fide. It is stated that as per the condition of the warranty, the replacement of the product or refund is specially exploded. It is stated that the warranty only covers repair or replacement of any part of the product. It is stated that the Complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit, wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahajiwani, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the AR for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2.  The case of the Complainant is that on 22.11.2020, she had purchased LED TV from the Opposite Party No. 1 which was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2. She purchased the said LED TV for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/-. As per her case, during the warranty period there was some Display Issue. The service engineer of Opposite Party No. 2 visited the house of the Complainant and observed that there was some problem with regard to the panel. At that time the panel was not available and the Complainant was given coupon of Rs. 18,000/ i.e. value of the TV. Then on 08.12.2021, the Complainant visited Opposite Party No. 1 and she was given T4350 LED and she was told that this was the updated version of T4500 model. The price of the said LED TV was Rs. 19,000/-. The Complainant gave coupon of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- in cash. The said LED TV could not be connected with the phone through the Bluetooth. The customer care told her that the said LED TV was not having Bluetooth. Then she contacted Opposite Party No. 1 who told her that to take her coupon back and to hand over the said LED TV to it. The Complainant was told by Opposite Party No. 2 to give her T4350 LED TV to Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 would give T4500 TV. When she contacted Opposite Party No. 1 for the said purpose, she was told that it was having no such instructions. On 02.01.2022, she deposited her T4350 model with Opposite Party No. 1. She was told that LED T4500 or LED T4450 is one and the same product and only there is difference of numbering. She was told that after paying Rs. 2,000/- she can receive new LED TV and the same was not in stock. As per case of the Complainant, the features of T4450 and T4500 were not same. On 05.01.2022, she received a phone call from head office of Opposite Party     No. 1 and told her that she would be given discount of Rs. 500/-.
8. As revealed from the record, the Complainant had purchased one LED TV for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and the said LED TV was faulty. The Opposite Party No. 2 gave a coupon of Rs. 18,000/- to the Complainant and she purchased another LED TV from Opposite Party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/-. As per the case of the Complainant, the second LED TV was not suitable for her requirement. The Complainant has failed to lead any evidence that the second LED TV was given to the Complainant with assurance of certain features which were missing. The second LED TV was purchased by the Complainant of her free will. The Complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product. However, it is revealed from the case of the parties that the LED TV of the Complainant is lying with the Opposite Party No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 1 has not appeared to contest the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the Opposite Party No. 1 shall give the LED TV of the Complainant to her in working order within 30 days from the date of this order. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.
9. Order announced on 10.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)