Delhi

North East

CC/82/2022

GULSHAN BABBAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.82/22

In the matter of:

 

	Gulshan Babbar, N-87, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.	Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, DLF Centre Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001   Smart Solutions (Service Centre) 28/38 Gali No. 16, D-32, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110032   Shiam Enterprises (Dealer) 7/74 A Bhim Gali Main 60 Feet Road, Vishwas Nagar Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

05.04.2022 10.07.2023 02.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 01.04.2019, he had purchased a Samsung Inverter Air Conditioner from the Opposite Party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 34,500/-. It is his case that in the year 2021, the said AC was not working properly and there was an issue of cooling. After that the Complainant called the company many times but all in vain. After that in the month of April 2021, when it was fond that the AC was not doing cooling then a representative of Samsung Customer Care visited the house of the Complainant and told that the outdoor PCG got damaged and need to be changed. On 19.04.2021, the outdoor PCB got changed by charging an amount of Rs. 4,500/-. The warranty of the said PCG was for one year mentioned on the tax invoice. It is his case that again he was facing the same problem and on being filed a complaint in the Samsung Customer care, they visited the house of the Complainant and again told that outdoor PCB got damaged and need to be change and Complainant need to pay again to get it changed. Complainant stated that the said AC was defective or wrong product which was issued to the Complainant. Complainant filed a case in consumer helpline also. It is his case that after filing the case, head office of the Opposite Party called the Complainant and stated that “we will not charge for PCB part, now you will have to pay for e-com part for which you will have to bear          Rs. 1,635/- and no warranty will be given to you as we are providing you a product at a discounted rates.” Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the said AC with new one, Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 45,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that on 17.04.2021 and on 13.04.2021, the Complainant lodged a complaint that the AC was not working properly. On inspection by the Opposite Party No. 1, it was found that PCB was defective and the same was required to be changed. On 16.04.2021, the PCB of the AC was replaced by the Opposite Party No. 1 for a payment of Rs. 4,300/-. On 28.03.2022, the same problem arose and the Complainant lodged a complaint that there was no cooling from the AC. After inspection by the Opposite Party it was pointed out that outdoor PCB and EPROM were defective. It was suggested that the same were to be replaced for an estimated cost of Rs. 4,625/-. On 05.04.2022, the Complainant was facing the same problem and requested the Opposite Party to replace the AC. However, the Opposite Party did not replace the AC and replace the PCB and EPROM on payment of Rs. 1,637/- by the Complainant. It is stated that the allegations of the Complainant are false and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Sandeep Saha Jewani, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1.  The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased the air conditioner which was defective. In his evidence filed by way of affidavit, the Complainant has stated that the air conditioner which was supplied to him was defective or wrong product that is why he was facing the problem. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that there was problem of PCB and EPROM. The replacement of the same is not covered under the warranty because the same are normal wear and tear.
8. It is revealed from the complaint and the evidence filed by the Complainant that the AC which was sold to him was defective or wrong product. The onus to prove this fact lies upon the Complainant. The Complainant has not led any evidence to show that the AC was sold to him was defective or was a wrong product. The Complainant has also failed to bring on record anything to show that PCB and EPROM are covered under warranty of five years.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 02.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)