Haryana

Ambala

CC/384/2016

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Sharma Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupinder Singh Sudan

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  384 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         :  17.10.2016                                                     

                                                           Date of decision   :  27.02.2018

 

Amarjit Singh son of Sh. Harjit Singh resident of H.No.11-A, Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Prop. Sharma Electronics 33, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt.

2.       MRG Marketing (P) Ltd 1157@/14-a, Kartar   Nagar, Model Town, behind State Bank of India.

3.       Kohli Electronics Samsung authorized, Service Centre, near Prem Nagar, Ambala City

4.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. B-1, Sector-81, Phase-II, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP through its Principal Officer.

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

 

Present:       Sh. Bhupinder Singh Sudan, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for the OPs No. 3 & 4.

OPs No. 1 & 2 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 23.11.2016.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant purchased Samsung LED i.e. 32” LED Samsung Model UA32EH4003RMXL, vide serial No.228332EG112787 from M/s Sharma electronics on 13.08.2015 after  paying of cash Rs.22,500/- with one year warranty of each part of the abovesaid products. In the month of April, 2016 samsung LED was not working and complaint was made by the complainant on Toll free number and received complaint no.4211937274 but nobody turned up for services then 2^nd complaint on 21.05.2016 vide complaint no.4214534465 on the same day another complaint no.4214777766 made. The OPs sent engineer and he taken away LED with him and on 23.05.2016. The OPs denied to replace the abvoesaid product on the same day another message received from the OPs i.e. “estimate not approved” Engineer of the OPs detected the fault of LED that screen or penal not working. A legal notice dated 22.07.2016 was served through registered AD to the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.3 & 4 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complainant has approached to the service center of OP  on 06.04.2016 vide complaint no.4211937274 and reported  display problem in the unit. The engineer  of the OP visited  the premises of the complainant and unit was duly checked by the engineer and the engineer found that the Display Panel of the unit is damaged and the engineer told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the unit is damaged  due to negligence on part the of complainant and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis, but the complainant did not agreed to get his unit repaired and continued  to become adamant for replacement. After that the complainant again approached to the service center of OP on 21.05.2016 vides complaint no.4214534465 and this time also reported display problem in the unit. The engineer  of the OP again visited the premises of the complainant  and unit was duly checked  by the engineer and the engineer found the same Display Panel problem of the unit that the display of the unit is damaged and the engineer again told the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the unit is damaged due to  negligence on part of complainant and the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis, but the complainant did not agreed to get his unit repaired and continued to become adamant for replacement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on part of Ops No. 3 & 4 and same is hereby to be dismissed.

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as Annexure C-B to C-H and close his evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs No.3 & 4 tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A alongwith Annexure R-1 to R-8 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.   

5.                It is admitted that the complainant had purchased the LED from the OP No.1 for amounting of Rs.22,500/- for one year warranty as per Annexure C-B dated 13.08.2015. As per the allegation of the compliant the LED in question become defective and is not working. Upon this, he made the complaint on Toll Free Number of the OPs and another complaint also made on 21.05.2016 and OP No. 3  has sent his engineer and engineer has  made the report on the consumer service record Annexure R-2 dated 22.05.2016  is that “display problem penal damage  estimate given to customer, customer refused to repair”. The abovesaid documents has been placed by the OPs and  OPs have also placed on record regarding installation of LED as Annexure R-3 reported as installation done set made “OK” at the time of the installation of the LED in the house of the complainant. But OPs have argued that display problem, penal damage due to fault of the complainant and complainant refused to pay the repair charges and in this way there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. We are view that the display problem, penal damage problem is a manufacturing defect and the complainant cannot be blamed for this problem. However perusal of the consumer service record Annexure R-2 regarding LED in question, engineer of the OP has not mentioned that the above said defects have arisen due to the mishandling by the complainant. Therefore, the plea of OPs taken in the written statement Para No.2 is not tenable because no credible evidence has been lead on their behalf. It is also clear that the OP has not rectified the problem which was occurred during the warranty period. The LED in question becomes defective and complainant could not use the same. The above said appliance is necessary for daily use and it is a part and parcel of life in this modern era. Annexure R-2, job card issued by the Ops reveal that the product in question has went out of order. Therefore, the complainant has to visit service centre for rectifying the defect.

In view of above discussion, it is clear that the LED is not working properly and defect could not be rectified by the Ops. In this way, Ops No. 1, 3  & 4 are negligent to perform their duty. However OP No.2 is a seller of OP No.1 having no role in this case, so the complaint against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed and the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs  against Ops No. 1, 3 & 4  are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To repair/rectify the above said defect of LED in the question and make the same in working condition free of costs.  

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 27.02.2018

 

 

                                                                                               

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)           (D.N. ARORA)

    Member                                         Member                                  President