Delhi

East Delhi

CC/651/2015

GAURAV SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG ELEC - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 651/15

 

Shri Gaurav Sharma

S/o late Shri Rajesh Sharma

R/- 3626, 3^rd Floor

Opp. Golcha Cinema Car Parking

Gali Hakim Wali,

Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1. KBM Electronics

1/32, Main Vikas Marg

Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Samsung India Electronics
   2.  

Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road

Gurgaon, Sector-43, Gurgaon – 122 002                                  ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 21.09.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 25.10.2016

Judgment Passed on: 16.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

This complaint pertains to allegation of deficiency in services against KBM Electronics (OP-1) and Samsung India Electronics (OP-2).

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant had purchased 32” LED Smart TV on 7^th March 2015 for Rs. 32,000/- (Rs. 29,500/- + Rs. 2,500/- exchange of old TV) from OP-1.  On 15.07.2015, there was problem with the display of the TV for which the complainant contacted OP-1.  The complainant was asked to contact OP-2.  Engineer of OP-2 informed the complainant that repairs would be chargeable despite the fact that TV was under warranty.  The complainant was informed that the fault was due to moisture in the picture tube.  Despite several reminders and complaints, the said LED TV was not repaired.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 32,000/- and interest @ 24% from the date of purchase, compensation for harassment and mental agony and cost of litigation.  Photocopy of the bill, letter dated 24.07.2015, statement of account by Bajaj Finserv are annexed with the complaint.

3.        Notice of the complaint was served on OPs.  Written statement was filed by OP-2, where it was stated that the problem in the LED TV was due to mishandling by the complainant.  The product was physically damaged, thus, OP-2 was not liable to repair or replace the product as the said LED was out of warranty.  Thus, no deficiency in services can be attributed to OP-2.

4.        Rejoinder was filed by the complainant where contents of WS were denied and that of the complaint were reaffirmed. 

However, no evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant.  Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP-2, where Shri Srinivasan Jayant Joshi, authorized representative of Samsung India was examined. 

5.        We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP.  Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the complainant has not filed any evidence by way of affidavit despite opportunity.  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the allegations in his complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed.

            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