Punjab

Sangrur

CC/32/2015

Rani Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PACL Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Hatinder Prashar

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    638

                                                Instituted on:      01.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       05.06.2015

 

 

 

Kahan Dass Bawa aged about 53 years son of Shri Bhagta Nand R/O Opp. Old M.C. Office, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Goodwill Enterprises, Naya Bazar, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Prop. Harish Kumar son of Shri Gobind Ram, Resident of Sunam.

2.             Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Baljit Singh Karwal,Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Kahan Dass Bawa, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung LED TVUA 46F5100ARMXL model number 23453 ZED 300311M from Op number 1 vide bill number 1506 dated 29.11.2013 for Rs.73,900/-.  It is further averred that after two months of its purchase, the said product created sound problem and the complainant immediately approached OP number 1, who sent his technician for checking the same, who after checking the same told the complainant that it is OK.  After some days again the said problem arose in the LED TV and the complainant approached OP number 1, who sent his mechanic again. It is further stated that this problem arose a number of times.  It is further averred that on 24.11.2014 the same problem arose and the complainant lodged complaint vide number 4185524839, but OP number 1 did not come to resolve the problem.   It is stated further that the product contains manufacturing defects, as such he approached the Ops for replacement of the product or its refund, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.73,900/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the Samsung LED TV in question.  However, the other allegations in the complaint have been denied.  It is further averred in the complaint that factually the complainant visited the shop of the OP and told about some sound problem in his LED TV and accordingly the OPs lodged the complaint with the company and mechanic of the company visited the house of the complainant, but he could now show any problem. It is further stated that again the complainant lodged the complaint and mechanic of the company visited the complainant but could not found any defect.  However, the mechanic of the OP offered to replace the speakers for the just satisfaction of the complainant.   Any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint,  that the complainant has not alleged any specific defect, that the LED of the complainant is working properly as the complainant refused to take service of the visiting service engineer on 24.11.2014 and that no expert evidence has been produced on record by the complainant.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the LED in question from OP number 1 on 29.11.2013. However, any sound problem in the LED TV has been denied. It is stated in the reply that complainant made complaint for the first time on 20.6.2014 after purchasing the LED TV on 29.11.2013 and service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the LED TV in presence of the complainant and found no sound problem there.    Even on 24.11.2014, the complainant did not allow the technician to check the LED TV in question.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 CD and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 report, Ex.OP2/3 affidavit and Ex.OP2/4 certificate and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill issued by OP number 1 to the complainant showing the sale of the LED TV in question. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that after two months of its purchase, the said product created the sound problem and the technician of the OPs checked the same and assured that the same is now in working order and again the same problem arose after some days and the technician of the Ops came to set right the problem.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not mentioned any date when he lodged the complaints with the OPs and when the same were rectified.  The complainant has only mentioned the complaint number 4185524839 which was lodged only on  24.11.2014 and when the technician of the Ops visited the house of the complainant, then he even did not allow the technician to check the LED TV in question.  The complainant has not produced even any rejoinder to deny this fact nor this fact has been denied in his affidavit Ex.C-1 on record.  The complainant has not produced any expert evidence/expert opinion of the expert on record to show that the LED TV contains any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant in the complaint.  No other cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence has been produced by the complainant on record to corroborate his contention.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant purchased the LED TV in question on 29.11.2013 and failed to establish on record that he lodged any complaint with the Ops about the defect in the LED except the complaint dated 24.11.2014.  Even on 24.11.2014, the complainant did not allow the technician to check the LED TV in question.

 

7.             The contention of the complainant is that there is a sound problem in the LED TV purchased by the complainant.  Assuming that there is sound problem in the LED TV in question, we feel that the same can be rectified merely by replacing the old speakers with a new one of the LED TV in question.   Moreover, the OPs have mentioned in the reply of complaint that the mechanic of the Ops offered to replace the speakers of the LED TV, but the complainant refused to do so.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to replace the speakers of the LED TV with a new one.  We further order the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 5, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member