Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member
- Sh. Surjeet Singh and Smt.Sandeep Kaur complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one LED-Samsung UA60F6400ARLXL on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- against invoice No. 3960 dated 3.11.2013 from Bahadar Chand & Company, Hall Bazar, Amritsar. The abovesaid LED became inoperative , as such the complainant approached the seller i.e. Bahadar Chand & Company in the month of May 2016, who referred the complainant to opposite party No.1 . Thereafter complainant No.1 alongwith defective LED approached opposite party No.1, who asked the complainant No.1 for change of spare part code No. BN95-01214A/Panal cost of Rs. 83,679.26 paise including VAT and labour charges Rs. 1000/-. Opposite party No.1 took the delivery of the LED and received advance of Rs. 30000/- against invoice No. 1556 dated 4.5.2016. Complainant No.2 , who is daughter in law of complainant No.1 took delivery of LED after installing new part on 12.5.2016 from opposite party No. 1 on payment of balance amount and opposite party No.1 issued fresh invoice No. 1561 dated 12.5.2016 of total of Rs. 85000/- and promised to issue computerized tax/vat invoice with further one year guarantee/warranty of spare part installed in the LED. Opposite party No.1 issued final TAX/VAT invoice of Rs. 84,829/26 paise dated 6.5.2016. In the month of December 2016 the LED stopped functioning of display for which complainant No.2 alongwith complainant No.1 went to opposite party No.1 and showed him defect , who took delivery of the said LED against invoice dated 20.12.2016 and assured to deliver back the same after necessary adjustment in the LED parts, which would not had been occurred because the PANEL was changed by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 delivered back the LED to the complainants with assurance that now there will be no trouble of any kind in the LED in future as they had installed genuine spare part of the company and have made necessary adjustments in the LED. After use of one and half month the LED again became dead and when complainants approached opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 had refused to take liability for fixing faulty, duplicate or second hand panel in the LED. The complainant requested him to give original bill of purchase of Panel of Samsung company, which the opposite party refused to supply the same. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have sold and fitted defective/inferior quality, second hand spare part by charging Rs. 85000/- from the complainants. On account of that complainants have faced hardship as the LED is the necessity of day to day life . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite parties be directed to change the defective panel/spare part with genuine company with extended warranty without payment or to return Rs. 85000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of invoice till payment ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 40000/- alongwith litigation expenses be also awarded to the complainants.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the true and correct facts from this Forum. The LED in question has been purchased on 3.11.2013 and warranty period of one year expired on 2.11.2014. No problem has been reported during the warranty period . Any complaint or repair after expiry of warranty period is carried out on chargeable basis only . First complaint was lodged on 30.1.2016 and service engineer from opposite party No.1 visited the house of the complainant and checked the LED in question and it has been physically mishandled as its panel was found broken due to which LEN was not working. The estimate of repair was given to the complainant but the complainant refused to get the LED repaired on chargeable basis. Complainant again lodged complaint on 3.2.2016 but again the complainant refused to get the LED repaired on chargeable basis. The complainant again lodged complaint on 4.5.2016 and service engineer visited on 5.5.2016 and this time complainant permitted and agreed to pay for the repair charges. Hence, the LED TV panel was duly replaced and defect was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the problem in LED was reported on 20.12.2016 which was duly attended and problem was rectified on chargeable basis. The complainants then lodged complaint on 6.2.2017 but again the complainants refused to pay for the repair charges , hence the product could not be repaired. On merits , it was submitted that LED was duly repaired and rectified by opposite party No.1 on chargeable basis . It was admitted that opposite party No.1 issued fresh invoice on payment of balance amount. It was denied that any guarantee/warranty of one year was given on the replaced part of the LED. It was submitted that LED was submitted with opposite party No.1 on 20.12.2016 and job sheet was issued by opposite party No.1 and defect in the LED was duly rectified by opposite party No.1 and delivered back to complainant in OK condition. It was denied that after one and half month the LED again became dead and complainant approached opposite party No.1. It was denied that duplicate panel was fixed in the LED. It was denied that opposite party No.1 refused to supply the bill of purchase of panel from answering opposite party. It is pertinent to mention here that had the panel been defective or of inferior quality, then the replaced panel would not have worked for more than 9 months. It was denied that opposite parties have not bothered to change the panel and other parts. Rather complainant has failed to pay for the parts to be replaced by opposite party No.1. The opposite parties are still ready and willing to repair and rectify the LED on chargeable basis. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.1 did not opt to put in appearance, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, coy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 4.5.2016 Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 12.5.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of Tax/Vat Invoice Ex.C-5, copy of acknowledgement of service request Ex.C-6, copy of aadhar card Ex.C-7, copy of aadhar card of Sandeep Kaur Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Mrs.Preeti Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP2/1, copies of job sheets Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. From the perusal of record, it becomes evident that the complainant has purchased LED Samsung for Rs. 2,00,000/- against Invoice No. 3960 dated 3.11.2013, copy of Invoice is Ex.C-2 on record. It was the case of the complainant that the abovesaid LED became inoperative in the month of May 2016. As such the complainant approached the seller i.e. Bahadur Chand & Co., who referred the complainant to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant for change of spare part code No. BN95-01214A/Panal cost of Rs. 83,679.26 paise and labour charges Rs. 1000/- for which the complainant received advance of Rs. 30000/- vide invoice No. 1556 dated 4.5.2016 , copy of invoice is Ex.C-3 on record. Opposite party No.1 after installing new part on 12.5.2016 delivered back the LED to the complainant on payment of balance amount and issued fresh invoice No. 1561 dated 12.5.2016 to the tune of Rs. 85000/-, copy of the same is Ex.C-4 on record. However, in the month of December 2016 the abovesaid LED again stopped functioning and the complainant again approached opposite party No.1, who after taking delivery of the LED issued acknowledgement invoice dated 20.12.2016 and assured the complainant that the LED would be delivered back to the complainant after necessary adjustments in the LED parts. Copy of the acknowledgement invoice is Ex.C-5 on record. Opposite party No.1 delivered back the LED to the complainant with the assurance that there will not be any trouble in the LED in future . But , however after use of one and half month the LED again became dead . When complainants approached the opposite party No.1 , they refused to take liability for fixing duplicate panel in the LED. So it stands proved on record that the LED which was purchased for an hefty amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- became defective just after two and half years from the date of its purchased. But, however, the LED is not under the warranty period, as such the complainants have to bear the expenses for removing the defect occurred in the LED, which fact is proved on record as the complainants have placed on record copy of invoice dated 12.5.2016 for the replacement of component to the tune of Rs. 85000/- Ex.C-4 . However, after spending huge amount on replacing the component of LED, it again became defective on 20.12.2016. The complainants again approached the opposite party No.1 , who after making some adjustment in the LED, delivered back the same to the complainant. However, again after one and half month , the LED again became dead , but this time opposite party No.1 refused to take liability for fixing duplicate panel in the LED and rather threatened the complainant not to come to their shop as opposite party No.2 is liable for any defect in spare part supplied by them. It is pertinent to mention here that no customer would like to approach the service centre time and again , if the gadget been working perfectly in order . So the LED of the complainant become non-functional shortly after spending huge amount for the replacement of its component. As the opposite party No.1 has charged the amount of Rs. 85000/- for removing the defect in the LED, so it was the duty of the opposite party No.1 to repair the LED of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount and the complaint stands allowed accordingly. As the LED is not under warranty period and it was only opposite party No.1 who has charged the hefty amount from the complainants for the replacement of the component, as such opposite party No.2 is not liable for any lapse on the part of opposite party No.1. As such opposite party No.2 is discharged from its liability to repair the LED to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainants have to suffer lot of harassment ,mental agony as well as financial loss at the hands of opposite party No.1, as such opposite party No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 8.6.2017.
