DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  11.01.2016                                                 Date of decision   :  17.05.2017

Sandeep Singh son of Jarnail Singh now resident of House No.E-505, Sunny View Complex, Kharar, Sector 125, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                                                  ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Reliance Market & Reliance Fresh through its MD/Chairman, North Country Mall, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its MD/Chairman, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida 201305 (U.P.)

                                                      ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member         

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Mandeep Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Sanjiv Pabbi, counsel for OP No.1

                Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.2

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Sandeep Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             During the visit of complainant on 17.07.2015 to OP No.1, the salesman of OP No.1 insisted the complainant to buy 55’ LED manufactured by OP No.2. Discount of Rs.20,000/- was offered by OP No.2 on the price of LED and OP No.1 also offered discount of Rs.55,000/- on the price of LED. The complainant was told that this offer was valid only for 17.07.2015 and after that the LED would be sold at nominal discount. The total price of the LED was Rs.1,60,500/- and after discount its price came out to be Rs.84,970/-. The salesman of OP No.1 assured the complainant that the model is latest having good demand in the market. The complainant purchased the LED from OP No.1 by paying Rs.84,970/- in cash. On the same day one person of OP No.2 came to the house of complainant for installing the LED. However, when the box containing the LED was opened  by employee of OP No.2, a deep crack was found on the screen of the LED and employee of OP No.2  told that this is a defective piece and due to crack, the screen of the LED turned into blackish. The employee asked the complainant to get changed/replaced the LED from OP No.1. The complainant immediately contacted OP No.1 and requested to change the LED with another non defective LED. OP No.1 asked OP No.2 to change/replace the LED and assured the complainant that the LED would be replaced with another LED within 2-3 days. After 2-3 days the complainant again contacted OP No.1 who informed the complainant that the matter is under process with OP No.2. OP No.1 vide e-mail dated 26.10.2015 advised the complainant to pick up the LED from the store of OP No.1  as no replacement communication from OP No.2 was received by OP No.1.  The complainant number of times requested the OPs to replace the LED but till date the LED has not been replaced.  Now, the complainant is not interested to get replaced the defective LED and wants refund of his money. The complainant has also sent legal notice dated 12.11.2015 to the OPs and OP No.1 sent reply dated 27.11.2015 to the legal notice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.84,970/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till realisation; to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for mental trauma and harassment and costs of litigation.

3.             OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections that it is engaged in retail sale of various products including the LED TVs manufactured by Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. OP No.2 is providing after sale services to the customers. The customers visiting OP No.1 are apprised of the features of the products on display and informed of the prices and thereafter the customer makes choice suiting to his requirements and budget. The present complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1 as it has no role in addressing the grievance of the complainant. When the complainant approached OP No.1 with the alleged defect in the LED, it immediately informed OP No.2 and requested to provide all necessary assistance in redressing the grievance of the complainant.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant was satisfied before the purchase was complete. The LED was sold to the complainant after providing a heavy discount of Rs.75,530/- as it was on a liquidation price. The LED was satisfactory packed in presence of the complainant after his due inspection. However, the same was not delivered by OP No.1 through logistic support due to insistence of complainant that he will carry the same from the store of OP No.1 at his own risk. The complainant was never provided any assurance for replacing the defective TV set as the OP No.1 was never authorised by OP No.2 to provide after sale service. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP No.2 in its separate written statement has pleaded that the complainant has purchased a used demonstration TV set installed at the premises of OP No.1 and for the same the complainant has availed a big discount from OP No.1. Prior to purchase, the complainant had duly seen and examined the TV set. There was no manufacturing defect in the TV set. The physical damage was not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty. The OP is in no manner responsible for any physical damage to the TV that may have occurred either at the premises of OP No.1 or at the premises of the complainant or any time in between.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had purchased unsealed, open and used TV set which had been put on display by OP No.1.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; original bill Ex.C-1; original two photographs Ex.C-2; email Ex.C-3; original legal notice Ex.C-4; original two postal receipts Ex.C-5 and reply to the legal notice Ex.C-6.  In rebuttal, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sarbjit Khattal, its Store Manager Ex.OP-1/1. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Rana, its Manager as Ex.OP-2/1.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that despite assurance by the OPs till date the LED has not been replaced by the OPs and now the complainant is only ready to accept refund and not replacement of the LED. The complainant has been deprived the use of LED due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.             On the other hand learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that before purchase of the LED, the complainant has duly inspected the LED which was on display and he was told everything about it. The complainant agreed to purchase the LED because of heavy discount on it. The LED was packed in the presence of the complainant and the complainant himself took the LED to his house. Counsel for OP No.2 has argued that it is liable for any manufacturing defect in the LED only. There was no manufacturing defect in the LED. Thus, both the OPs have denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

8.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the parties.  The complainant himself has stated in the complaint that the LED was on display and on offering of heavy discount by the salesman he purchased the LED. It is the specific stand of OP No.1 that the LED was packed in the presence of the complainant and at that time there was no damage to it. The complainant himself took the LED to his house and the damage, if any, might have occurred during transit by the complainant. The complainant has not led any evidence to prove that the damage to the LED occurred due to negligence of any person of the OPs. It is also admitted by the complainant that the LED was on display in OP No.1. Thus, the complainant was well aware that the LED being sold to him was not a branded new. Thus, we hold that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the present complaint deserved to be dismissed. 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 03.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 17.05.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

 (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member