Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/2/2020

Sarita verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electornics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Singh

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-04-01-2020

Date of final hearing-04-01-2023

 Date of Order-04-01-2023

Case No. 02/2020

Sarita Verma W/o Nitesh Kumar Verma

R/o Sector-3/C, Qr.No. 372, Bokaro Steel City

Vs.

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

     6^th Floor, DLF Centre Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001

2. Samsung Service Centre

     Kunvar Singh Colony Chas, Bokaro-827013

 3. Reliance Retail Limited

      Unit No. 303, 304 and 305 Bokaro Mall Sector-3/C, Bokaro-827001 

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant’s case in brief is that she purchased Samsung T.V. on 15.08.2019 having Model No. 55NV7090 on Rs. 75,900/- which was installed on 16.08.2019 but after 4 days it became out of order. On complaint it was replaced on 26.09.2019 but replaced T.V. set also was inferior and started to malfunction just after 4 days of its installation. In spite of repeated requests defect was not removed hence legal notice was issued on 19.11.2019 having no impact, hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct O.Ps. to replace T.V. Set and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
2. O.P. No.1 has filed W.S. denying all allegations mentioning therein that there is no deficiency in service by this O.P. and case is not disclosing cause of action in which no evidence of any deficiency has been filed.
3. O.P.No.3 has filed W.S. mentioning therein that at the time of purchase complainant completely understood the terms and conditions of the product and was explained the risk and benefits attached to the warranty card issued. Further reply is that the complainant has made allegation without any evidence and case is not maintainable because it does not come within purview of section of 14 C.P. Act 1986. Further reply is that no complaint has been registered in the system of this O.P. and there is no specific allegation against this O.P. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the case .
4. Now, point for consideration is whether complainant has proved his case for grant of relief as prayed ?
5. In support of allegation photo copy of Tax Invoice, photo copy of SMS and photo copy of legal notice have been produced by the complainant and except it there is no any other oral or documentary evidence by the complainant.
6. On careful perusal of the materials available on the record it is very much apparent that warranty card related to T.V. set purchased by the complainant has not been produced in evidence. There is no any evidence to prove that the T.V. Set which was purchased was having manufacturing defect nor there is any evidence to show that said T.V. set was not functioning properly. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove its case for grant of any relief.
7. In light of above discussion, this case is dismissed. In the facts of this case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                       President

 

                                                                                               

    (B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

 

 

                                                                                       (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                          Member