Delhi

East Delhi

CC/260/2016

VIKAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE RETAIL - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 260/16

 

Shri Vikal Singh

S/o Shri Udal Singh

Flat No. 39/2A, Ground Floor

Save Sadan Block, Gali No. 2

Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi – 110 092                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.     

1. M/s. Reliance Retai Limited

Digital Express

F-11, PlotNo. 12, V3S Mall

East Centre, Laxmi Nagar Distt. Centre

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.

(Service Centre)

A-25, Ground Floor,

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate

Saidabad, New Delhi – 110 044

 

3. M/s.Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. (Head Office)

2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square

Golf Course Road, Sector-43

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002                                                        …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 19.05.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 05.02.2019

Judgement Passed on:14.02.2019

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri Vikal Singh against M/s. Reliance Retail Limited (OP-1), M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Service Centre-Saidabad (OP-2) and M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Head Office-Gurgaon (OP-3), with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 2.      The facts in brief are that on 26.09.2015, the complainant purchased one Samsung LED TV 23H40 1EA13900.00V5 from M/s. Reliance Retail Limited (OP-1) by paying an amount of Rs. 12,800/-. 

It was stated that on 04.02.2016, there was problem in the display of TV, for which a complaint was registered with OP-2. Shri Sunjay Chaudhary, Service Engineer of OP-2 visited to attend the complaint on 08.02.2016 and clicked the photographs of the LED TV.  The complainant was told that the picture tube of the TV was damaged and it would be changed in the guarantee period.  On 10.02.2016, another service engineer    Shri Satander visited the place of the consumer and clicked the photograph of the TV in question stating that they were required for seeking approval for repairs.

It was further stated that on 12.02.2016, Shri Sunjay Chaudhary again visited the place of the complainant and informed that OP-2 would  not change the picture tube of the LED TV.   

.         The complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.02.2016 to all OPs, which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainant prayed for directions to OP to replace/change the picture tube and repair the LED TV; to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards harassment and mental pain &agony and Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation.

          The complainant has annexed copy of invoice, legal notice and its postal receipts alongwith complaint.    

3.       Written Statement was filed by OP-1, where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as they were the only seller of LED TV; it was the manufacturer who provided warranty on the product and service centre who provided service to the complainant; the complainant never approached OP-1 and was dealing directly with OP-2 and OP-3; there was no direct allegation against them.  Hence, there was no deficiency on their part.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

          OP-2& OP-3 filed the reply in which they have stated that the LED TV in question carried a warranty for a period of one year and in case of repair the same was to be repaired as per warranty policy, the company shall repair the product free of cost within the warranty period. They have further stated that in case the product or any part of the same was damaged then the warranty shall be void and the company will repair the product on chargeable basis payable by the complainant.  The picture tube of the TV was damaged due to the negligence of the complainant, hence the product was out of warranty. Therefore, the complainant was asked to pay the cost of repairs which he refused.

It was admitted that the complainant purchased the TV from OP-1 on 26.09.2015 and on receiving the complaint, the technician of OP-2 visited the place of the complainant and found that the picture tube was damaged and needs to be replaced.  The same was informed to the complainant but the complainant denied repair cost.  Other facts have also been denied.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 

5.       In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.    He has got exhibited documents such as copy of cash memo / invoice bill (Ex. CW-1/A), copy of legal notice, its postal receipts and AD card (Ex.CW-1/B to 1/F).

          In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Paramjit Singh, Store Manager of OP-1, who have deposed on oath and narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

          OP-2 & 3 have examined Anindya Bose, AR of OP-2 & OP-3 who have also deposed on affidavit and has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  It has been stated that in order to provide the customer service, OP-2 & OP-3 had tried to resolve the complainant, which was refused by the complainant.

6.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the parties.  The complainant is aggrieved by non-repair of his LED TV by OP-2 & OP-3, stating the picture tube to be out of warranty. 

          The first and foremost argument advanced by OP-2 & OP-3 was that no job sheet / no expert opinion has been filed by the complainant in support of his allegations. The non-working of LED TV due to fault in picture tube was an admitted fact in WS of OP-2 & OP-3 and their contention that the picture tube was damaged due to negligence of the complainant, even they have also not filed any document to support their contention not even the photographs based on which they have declared the product to be out of warranty.

          As far as allegations against OP-1 are concerned, they cannot be held liable of rendering deficient services as they are mere retailer and the after sale services are to be provided by the manufacturer.  

          When OP-2 & OP-3 were in possession of the photographs, which they failed to file, an adverse inference is to be drawn against them.  Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct OP-2 & OP-3 to repair the LED TV without any cost and thereby giving warranty of 6 months on the LED TV from the date of repair.

          We also award Rs. 11,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as OP-2 & OP-3, on flimsy ground denied repair of LED TV, which was in the warranty period.  This act/omission of OP-2 & OP-3 has deprived the complainant from the use of LED TV for which it was purchased. 

The said order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of order by OP, else Rs. 11,000/- shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                           Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

           President