DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.179/2018
- Rohit Goyal
R/o A-298, Meera Bagh,
New Delhi-110001
….Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd
6th Floor, DLF Centre,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001
2. Aegis Infotech
(Authorized Service Centre, Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd)
UG-25, Ansal Chamber-II,
6, Bhikaji Cama Place,
Opp. Vijaya Bank,
New Delhi-110066
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 21.06.2018
Date of Order : 26.06.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Shubham Shankar, Proxy counsel on behalf of Adv.
Akarsh Garg for complainant.
Adv. Nasreen, Proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Prashant
Arora for OP-1
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put, complainant purchased a Samsung Laptop (Model No. NP-RV509-A06IN) of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, hereinafter referred to as OP-1, on 02.08.2011.
2. It is stated that Aegis Infotech (OP-2) the authorized service centre of OP-1, approached the complainant on 28.07.2014 and offered to give extended warranty on the laptop for another two years (period expiring on 28.07.2016).Complainant paid Rs.5,001/- for the same, vide receipt no.3278 dated 28.07.2014. Copy of the extended warranty document is annexed as Annexure C-1.
3. It is next stated that complainant faced some problem with his laptop on 15.06.2016 and approached OP-2 to avail the benefit of the extended warranty but was told that the service centre has been shifted/closed. Being unable to connect to OP-2, the complainant called up the Samsung Customer Care and was informed that all repairs are carried out at the Okhla Service Centre. Upon enquiry from the Customer Care about the warranty status for his product, complainant was refused the benefit of the extended warranty on the pretext that the same could not be found in the system and hence could not be verified.
4. Thereafter complainant wrote to OP-1 and also showed the original receipt, however, OP-1 in very casual manner shunned from his responsibility and refused to resolve the grievance of the complainant.
5. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, complainant approached this Commission with prayers to remedy the damage caused by OP; grant compensation of Rs.31,000/- for the loss incurred by the complainant; to grant compensation of Rs.5,001/- paid by the complainant for extended warranty with interest @18% p.a ; for directions to OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
6. OP filed its written version stating inter alia that complainant has not attached any invoice or any other documentary evidence to prove that he is a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. It is next objected that the present complaint is barred by limitation. As per the complainant the last communication between the complainant and OP-1 was on 22.06.2016 and the date of filing of complaint is 01.08.2018 which is beyond the statutory period of 02 years.
7. It is next stated that the said product carries warranty for a period of one year. The complainant has failed to prove its extended warranty which could not be authenticated as OP-2 has shut his shop and there is no extended warranty in the system of OP-1. However, as per records of OP-1 the complainant purchased a Care Pack for two years which was valid till August, 2014. It is further stated that complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product in question or any deficiency on part of OP-1 and that as a consequence thereof, loss or injury was suffered by him.
8. It is thus prayed that complaint be dismissed with costs being devoid of merit.
9. Complainant filed the rejoinder reiterating the averments in the complaint. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions made by the Learned counsels are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
10. Before, we go to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to deal with the preliminary objections raised by OP. Complainant has filed retail invoice as Exhibit C-1 which shows that complainant purchased the laptop in question on 02.08.2011 by paying consideration and is therefore a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As regards the objection of OP that the complaint is barred by limitation, it is noticed that OP-1 declined the request of the complainant for discounted or free of cost repair on 22.06.2016 and the instant complaint is filed on 21.06.2018, which is well within the statutory period of two years. Therefore both the objections raised by OP are rejected.
11. On perusal of the documents filed before us, it is revealed that complainant purchased Laptop on 02.08.2011 by paying the consideration of Rs.28,500/- . Exhibit C-3 shows that OP-2 which is the authorized service centre of OP-1, had given extended warranty of two years on the laptop to the complainant on 28.07.2014 and had received Rs.5,001/- towards the same. Exhibit C-4 is a mail wherein it is stated on behalf of OP-1 that as the Care Pack benefits could not be found in their system, hence, it could not be verified. Thus, the request of the complainant for discounted/free of cost repair of the unit was not considered.
12. It is not in dispute that OP-2 was an authorized service centre of OP-1. OP-1 cannot wash of their hands by simply stating that the benefits/extended warranty given to the complainant by OP-2 was not found in their system, therefore would deny free of cost repairs. Complainant has filed the receipt which shows that he has paid Rs.5,001/- to OP-2 to get the warranty extended for two years on his laptop. OP-1 is found to be deficient in service for not repairing the laptop of the complainant free of charge when he had extended warranty for his Laptop. OP-1 cannot escape the liability by stating that OP-2 who was an authorized dealer of theirs has shut the shop and Extended Warranty on the laptop of the complainant is not showing in their system.
13. In light of the discussion above, OP-1 is found to be deficient in service. Hence OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficient services within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP-1 shall pay Rs.15,000/- @4% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
