| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.385 of 15.12.2022 Decided on : 27-08-2024 Amritpal Singh S/o Mohinder Singh aged 32 years R/o H.No.23, St. No.13/13, Mannat Colony, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda-151001. ........Complainant Versus Samsung India Pvt.Ltd., through its MD or Authoized Signatory, Registered Office Address: 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. M/s Jot Enterprises through its Prop./Partner or Authorized Signatory, Authorized Service Centre Samsung India Pvt.Ltd., Office Add: SCF No.20, Ground Floor Opp. Indian Oil Petrol Pump, 100 ft. Road, Near Bhagu Road, Bathinda-151001.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh.Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Smt.Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.L.S Bhaika, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.K.P Sharma, counsel for OP No.1. opposite parties No.2 ex-parte. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Amritpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Samsung India Pvt.Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he registered a complaint on 19.8.2022 for his Samsung LED 42 inches purchased in 2017 in which he was facing power fluctuation problem. The TV was in the working condition and its picture and sound were clear and good and there was no crackdown anywhere on it. The only issue was that sometimes after continuous watching, it get off on automatically. It is alleged that the visual support team checked the TV through video calling and there might be hardware problem and told that their engineer will visit. The complaint was registered vide complaint No.4353901534 dated 19.8.2022. On the visit of the engineer, he also checked the TV and it was working and there is no any crackdown on it, but there was power issue for which power supply board worth Rs.4000/- was needed to be changed. They demanded Rs.2000/- in advance on placing order for the required part and the complainant paid the same through Google Pay to the authorized service centers accounts. After receiving advance money, they ordered spare parts for his Samsung LED. The engineer came to repair the LED alongwith part ordered at the service centers address. The parts ordered for the LED was not compatible and suitable for this model. They told that they will place another order for part and also took the TV alongwith them for repair at Bathinda to repair. It is further alleged that after a few days, the complainant called the customer care on 5.10.2022 to know about the status of his complaint as he was not receiving any reply from them. The complainant came to know that the service center has closed his complaint. After verifying, the service center lodged a complaint on 5.10.2022 vide complaint No.4357073552. Till date the complainant sent them many e-mails and called them many times to return LED in working condition, but to no effect. It is further alleged that on 31.10.2022, the complainant registered a complaint on National Consumer Helpline seeking helps vide docket No.3974540. After that for the first time, the complainant received a call from the Customer Experience Manager Ms.Tanu Pal, but to no avail. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to make a payment of amount of TV i.e. is Rs.40,000/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension in addition to any other additional and alteranative relief. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version and raising preliminary objections that this complaint and complainant does not fall within the ambit of definition of 'Consumer' as defined under 'Act'. The complainant has not placed on record the purchase bill of the LED TV from where it can be ascertained that the product is manufactured or imported by opposite party No.1. As per the information received from opposite party No.2, the product i.e. LED TV is not manufactured by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has not sold the product to the complainant directly or indirectly through its authorized retailers spread all over India. The product is an imported model and it does not carry international warranty. As such, the complainant is not ‘Consumer’ of opposite party No.1. The complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1. As per the record of opposite party No.2 and information provided by it, the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to his LED TV with opposite party No.2 in the month of August 2022 and opposite party No.2 checked the LED TV and found that 'power supply and motherboard needs to be changed', but the product was not covered under warranty as it was an imported LED TV and it was not carrying international warranty. Opposite party No.2 after seeking the approval of estimate of repair from the complainant, tried to change the 'power supply and motherboard', but as the product was imported, the available parts in the stock of opposite party No.2 did not fit in the LED TV. Accordingly, opposite party No.2 showed its inability to repair the LED TV and service call was closed. Thereafter the complainant again on 5.10.2022 lodged the complaint with opposite party No.2, it again checked the availability of the required parts, but as the required parts were not available, the LED TV could not be repaired. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. Opposite parties have unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the complaint. No cause-of-action arose to the complainant to file the complaint against opposite party No.1. Further preliminary objections are that the complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and it is totally false and frivolous. The complainant is concealing the true facts from this Commission and is trying to take benefit of his own wrong. The liability, if any, is of opposite party No.2, rather the complainant is trying to take benefit of his own wrongs by filing this false complaint. There is no deficiency in service or breach of contract. The complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention to extract money from opposite parties by dragging in unwanted litigation. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost qua opposite party No.1. On merits, opposite party No.1 has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his two affidavits dated 13.7.2023 and 12.12.2022, (Ex.C1 & Ex.C16) and affidavit of Jaspreet Singh dated 10.4.2024, (Ex.C15) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex. C14). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani dated 14.3.2023, (Ex. OP1/1). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. As per complainant, he faced power fluctuation problem in his LED TV and registered a complaint with opposite party No.2. The service engineer of opposite party No.2 visited the complainant and told him that some part of the LED TV is required to be changed and demanded Rs.2000/- in advance that has been paid by the complainant vide Google Pay, (Ex.C13) and could not repair the LED TV in the house of the complainant and took the LED TV to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2. Despite payment of Rs.2000/-, opposite party No.2 has failed to repair the LED TV or return it to the complainant till date. Due to this, the complainant has suffered from mental tension, agony and harassment. The complainant has brought on file various documents and affidavits to prove his grievance and efforts to get the needful done, but all in vain. Opposite party No.2 neither returned the LED TV after repair nor refunded the amount of Rs.2000/- taken for repair. Thus, there is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2. Moreover opposite party No.2 has not come forward to contest the complaint of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant attached with sworn affidavit goes unrebutted and unchallanged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased Samsung LED TV in the year 2017 and registered first complaint on 19.8.2022 vide e-mail, (Ex.C2), but the complainant failed to bring any document to connect opposite party No.1 with LED TV in question. Therefore, opposite party No.1 is not liable for any deficiency in service. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost, compensation and litigation expenses against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2000/- and return the LED TV to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite parties will be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to incomplete quorum and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 27-08-2024 - (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
