Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 433
Instituted on : 04.08.2023.
Decided on : 18.01.2024.
Raj Kumar Vijage 40 years, s/o Sh. BalramVij.R/o VPO Baniyani(123) Rohtak Also at 1177/14, Mahabir Colony, Kirpal Ashram, Rohtak.
...................Complainant.
Versus
Pahwa& Co. (Samsung official Service Centre) (Previously B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.) at Jain Mansion Huda Complex, Near Old Gymkhana Club, Rohtak124001 through its Manager/Owner.
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. At 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its CEO/President/Authorized Representative.
......................Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.DivyamPanghal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.KunalJuneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he purchased a Samsung 43 UHD Smart LED TV on dated 22.10.2022 for Rs.34890/- vide bill no.351514592168. After the purchase of said TV, the complainant started using it as per guidelines and instructions for use by the manufacturer, but the same did not even properly work for some days. There were hanging issues from the very beginning itself. On 16.06.2023 the TV stopped functioning completely and when the complainant contacted the service center, he was promised that an engineer will be assigned. On 17.06.2023 the official of the opposite parties tried to figure the problems via video calling but they failed to resolve it or even correctly figure it out. After various requests of the complainant, they visited the house of the complainant on 21.06.2023 and merely informed the complainant that they will not resolve it here. Complainant was instructed to deposit the TV at the service centre. The complainant deposited the TV at the service centre and on 23.06.2023 the service centre’s officials called the complainant and informed that they will rectify the problem in front of the complainant. When the complainant present before them, he was shocked to see that the whole display of the TV was broken whereas at the time of depositing the TV, the screen was completely intact. The TV was properly packed at the house of the complainant by the officials of opposite parties themselves and it was found broken while it was in complete custody of the service centre. Complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the broken display or to replace the TV but the same was turned down by the officials of the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hencethis complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of Rs.34890/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase, to pay Rs.100000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.100000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties through registered post. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant in regard to complaint regarding the unit in question, approached the company for the first time on 17.06.2023 vide callno.4372719731 and reported ‘NO PICTURE PROBLEM’ in his unit. The engineer of the company duly attended the call/complaint and visited the house of the complainant and on initial check, it was found that the unit was not getting on and for thorough check of the defect and faults in the unit, firstly the back light of the display of the unit is required to be replaced in order to further check the defect and shortcoming (if any). It was also told to the complainant that for the same, the unit is required to be brought to the service center workshop and as per the procedure, the complainant was requested to bring the unit at service center workshop and the complainant brought the unit at service center and in front of the complainant, the engineer changed the back light of the unit and after replacement of the backlight, the power in the TV came and power got on in the TV. The display of the TV found damaged from internal side. All the work and activity of replacement of backlight bar of the unit and about display found internally broken/damage was done in front of the complainant and the complainant himself witnessed the same, but just only to escape from the act of negligence on part of complainant, he concocted a false story. As the unit was found internally display damage and as per the warranty conditions, the unit is out of warranty and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly, the engineer provided an estimate of repair and told to complainant that the warranty of the unit has got barred due to PANEL DAMAGE but the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair.There is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on part of opposite party company. No question of any relief to complainant arises at all and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. It is, therefore, prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs. Opposite party No.1 made a statement on dated 17.10.2023that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.1.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 17.10.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence on 27.12.2023. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 made a statement on dated 27.12.2023 that affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 be also read on behalf of opposite partyno.1 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the bill Ex.C2, complainant had purchased a Samsung LED for Rs.34890/- on 23.10.2022 from the Reliance Retail Ltd.. As per copy of message Ex.C3 dated 24 June, received from the Customer Experience Manager Samsung Electronics, it was informed to the complainant that he was assigned to handle the concern of complainant with priority and will keep the complainant updated. As per copy of email Ex.C4 dated 28.06.2023, the complainant has submitted that: “At the time of checking the LED by the engineer from service centre, he told that there was problem in one spare part that is light. And also told that there was no problem/damage in the display. They asked to provide the LED at their service centre. The complainant provided the LED to the Service centre and after 2-3 days, he received a call from the service centre and they told that LED damaged part(Light) has come and they will open the LED in front of complainant and change the part. After reaching the complainant and after changing the light part they said that the display is broken”. From the alleged email it is observed that at the time of submitting the LED, it should have been checked by the officials of service centrebefore the complainant that whether the same was in OK condition or not, or they should tell the complainant at that time that they will open the LED before the complainant. Once they received the LED, they cannot take the plea after 2-3 days that LED panel was broken. Opposite party has also placed on record copy of photograph of LED as Ex.R2, which shows that before change LED bar, it was showing black screen and Ex.R3 is the photograph after changing the LED bar, which is showing vertical lines on the display. We have also perused the job sheet Ex.R4, which shows that in the column of defect detected, it is mentioned: “Panel Broken found from internal side”. But there is some tampering in this column which is done by using the white fluid. No photograph or video has been placed on record by the opposite parties to prove the fact that the LED panel was found broken at the time of submitting the same by the complainant to the service centre. Moreover, from the documents placed on record by the opposite parties it is proved that the LED was showing black display and after changing the part, it could not be repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the amount of Rs.34890/- after deducting the depreciation of 10% as the complainant had used the LED in question uninterruptedly for 8 months i.e. to refund Rs.31400/-(rounded off) (Rs.34890/- less Rs.3489/-= Rs.31401/-).
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.31400/-(Rupees thirty one thousand and four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.08.2023 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainantwithin one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………
Vijender Singh, Member
