Delhi

East Delhi

CC/102/2022

SANTOSH KR. JHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELE. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. ROY

11 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 102/2022

 

	MR. SANTOSH KUMAR JHA S/o Late Dr. Dayadhar Jha R/o E-30, E-Block, Ganesh Nagar Pandav Nagar Complex Delhi-110092	….Complainant
Versus
	SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Through Its Managing Director/CEO HEAD OFFICE: 20TH TO 24TH FLOOR, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurugram, Haryana-122202	……OP1
	SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Through Its Director REGD. OFFICE: DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, 6th Floor, New Delhi-110001	……OP2
	EP ELECTRONIC PARADISE PVT. LTD. Through its Proprietor C-52, C-Block, Preet Vihar Delhi-110092	……OP3

 

Date of Institution	:	23.02.2022
Judgment Reserved on	:	06.07.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	11.07.2023

 

 

 

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

 

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service in selling defective LED TV to the Complainant.    
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one LED TV from the OP3 on 18.11.2021 for Rs.17,000/- however the said TV stopped functioning on 01.02.2022 as the picture tube became faulty and there after a complaint was made to Customer Care of OP and one Engineer/Technician of the OP visited the complainant and informed that picture tube needs replacement but the same would cost Rs.12,000/- as the product does not cover the warranty of the picture tube.  It is further stated that he purchased the TV in November 2021 itself and it has stopped working within a period of 2 ½ months and therefore it was within the warranty but the OP did not repair the same, free of cost rather demanded Rs.14,194.97/- vide email whereas he had earlier demanded Rs.12,000/-.  Aggrieved by the same the complainant issued legal notice to the OP which was not complied with and the complainant filed the present complaint thereby demanding that OP1 and OP2 be directed to replace the LED TV with the new TV or refund the amount along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- including litigation charges.  A bill of Rs.17,000/- is in the name of the complainant  is enclosed with complaint. 
3. The OPs were served and OP1 received the copy of the complaint from the Commission on 23.05.2022.  The OP had filed Written Statement on 11.07.2022 without any application seeking condonation of delay and on raising the objection by the complainant OP filed application seeking condonation of delay subsequently.  However, after hearing, the application of OP seeking condonation of delay was dismissed vide Order dated 19.12.2022 as the same was filed with delay of 22 days over and above 30 days.  Therefore, although the Written Statement has been filed by OP1 and OP2, yet there is no necessity to deal with the objection as the Written Statement cannot be read for the purpose of their defense.  OP3 never appeared and was never proceeded Ex-parte formally and was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 06.07.2023. 
4. The Complainant has filed its evidence. 
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The facts of the complaint have gone unrebutted, the counsel for the OP1 and OP2 has proposed to reimburse the amount equal to the cost of the TV to the Complainant but complainant did not agree to the same.  Without referring any opinion on such proposal, one fact by now is clear that the Picture Tube of the TV as has been purchased by the complainant in November 2021, has become defective in February 2022 i.e. within a span of 2 ½ months.  The picture tube was required to be repaired/replaced as per the warranty.  The contention of OP as per the complaint of the Complainant itself is that the Engineer demanded Rs.12,000/- and subsequently more than Rs.14,000/- from the complainant is beyond the imagination as to why the OP would demand this amount if the product is under warranty.  Therefore, there appears to be deficiency on the part of OP in not repairing the TV.  Accordingly, the Commission hereby orders as follows:

• OPs would refund Rs.17,000/- to the complainant (Jointly and severally) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the filing the complaint till actual payment and a compensation of Rs.4,000/-.  The OP would pay this amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest @ 9% would be charged on all above amounts.  Simultaneously, complainant would return this TV in question to the OPs. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 11.07.2023