Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/94/2015

Balbir Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

P.S.Syan

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.94 of 2015

                                                     Date of institution : 21.10.2015                                                            Date of decision    : 24.06.2016

Balbir Kaur aged about 45 years wife of Sh. Ram Dayal Singh R/o Near Khalsa High School, Football Ground, Hamayunpur(Sirhind), Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.     Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., B-I, Sector 81, Phase-2, Noida-201305(U.P.) India.

2.     M/s Roshan Lal Madan Lal, Sirhind Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor.

3.     Samsung Service Center, Amloh Road Mandi Gobindgarh through its authorized signatory.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                           

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                                 Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                                Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh.P.S.Syan, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                                   Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.                                                          Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3.       

ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Balbir Kaur aged about 45 years wife of Sh. Ram Dayal Singh R/o Near Khalsa High School, Football Ground, Hamayunpur(Sirhind), Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a LED TV Samsung amounting to Rs.23,250/-(including VAT), vide invoice No.1367 dated 22.10.2014, from OP No.2. After one month from the date of purchase, the said LED TV started to create problem in sound system. The complainant lodged a complaint on customer care number of the OPs and on the said complaint, the OPs sent their technician to the house of the complainant to sort out the problem occurred in the said LED TV, who assured the complainant that the problem was due to channel disturbance. A job card was issued by the technician and signature of the complainant was also taken on the said job card.  After some times the complainant noticed that a big dark spot was visible on the screen of the LED TV.  The complainant again lodged a complaint No.4200740963 dated 05.09.2015 with the OPs.  The OPs changed the front panel of the LED TV and sent a message on 17.09.2015 that the problem was solved out. Thereafter the complainant noticed that after change of the front panel of the said LED TV there is problem in sound system again and it creates unexpected noise and before starting the LED TV the screen was getting blinks with sound three to four times and it also creating problem regarding changing of channel automatically after switching on the LED TV. The complainant again lodged a complaint bearing No.4201951491 dated 28.09.2015. The technician of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and after inspecting the said LED TV, he told that the back panel of the LED TV has got defected. It was further told by the OPs that they ordered the manufacturer to change the said back panel of the LED TV. But without changing the defective part of the LED TV, the OPs sent a message on 15.10.2015 that the said problem has been solved. The complainant approached the OPs and requested them to replace the said LED TV with new one but they refused to do so and also refuse to repair the LED TV. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint, for giving directions to the OPs refund an amount of Rs.23,250/- i.e.price of the LED TV and further to pay Rs.20,000/-, as compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental pain and Rs.10,000/-, as cost of litigation.
3. Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. But OPs No.1 and 2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.3, who filed the written version.  In the written version OP No.3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as she has concealed the true and correct facts; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that on the complaint of the complainant lodged on 05.09.2015, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the LED but no such problem of dark spot on the screen was found, but on the insistence of the complainant the panel of LED TV was duly replaced for the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again lodged a complaint on 28.09.2015 but when the service engineer visited the house of the complainant, he was not allowed to inspect the LED TV and he has to come back without checking.  It is further stated that the question of replacement or refund does not arise when problem in the LED TV can be duly rectified as the product was under warrantee.  The complainant neither alleged any specific irrepairable manufacturing defect nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submissions. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs are still ready and willing to repair the product in question. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence true copies of documents i.e. telephonic messages Ex. C- 1 to Ex. C-6, her affidavit Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP3/1 and closed the evidence.
6.           The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased LED TV vide bill No.1367 dated 22.10.2014 from OP No.2, who is retailer and OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the said LED TV and OP-3 is the service centre of OP No.1. The Ld. counsel pleaded that the LED TV just after one month of purchase started creating problem in sound system. Then in September 2015, another problem of big dark spot on the LED TV screen was visible, which was rectified by changing front panel of LED TV.  Then after few days LED TV started giving problem in sound system again and created unexpected noise and screen getting blinks. This time without rectifying the defect, the OPs sent a message that the problem has been solved. The ld. counsel thus pleaded that the LED TV purchased from the OPs was not working properly after few days from purchase. Thus OPs have committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice for not repairing/replacing the said LED TV in question.  He prayed for acceptance of this complaint.
7.           The Ld. counsel for OP No.3 submitted that the complaints lodged by the complainant were duly attended and timely action was taken to resolve the fault in the LED TV. Firstly the problem in the sound system was rectified, then front panel was changed in September 2015. When the complainant lodged complaint on 28.09.2015, the service engineer was not allowed to check & rectify the problem in the LED TV. It shows that LED seems to be working properly as complainant had refused to take service of the visiting service engineer on 28.09.2015. Thus there is no question of deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice. Under the warranty OPs are liable to repair or replace only the defective parts of the product in question. The complainant is not entitled for replacement or refund of price. The OPs are still ready to provide the service to the complainant and have never denied after sales service. Moreover, there was no expert evidence or any report of the approved laboratory regarding manufacturing defect in the product. The Ld. counsel thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8.           After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties, we find that in the absence of any technical expert report, it is presumed that there is no manufacturing defect in the LED TV.  But certainly there is some defect in the functioning of the LED TV, since complainant had to approach OPs thrice for repair in short span of 11 months. The complaint is therefore, partly accepted. The OPs are directed to repair/rectify the fault in the LED, to the full satisfaction of the complainant without charging for labour and parts replaced, within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The complainant is also held entitled to a compensation on account of mental tension, physical harassment and cost of litigation for a sum of Rs.3,000/-, which is also payable within 45 days from the date of  receipt of this order.
9.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.06.2016 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:24.06.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                President

 

(Veena Chahal)              Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)              Member