Delhi

North East

CC/194/2021

Sanjeev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

21 Apr 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. 194/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Sanjeev Singh, S/o Shri. Mathura Singh R/o H.No. B-4/51, Gali No. 5 Sunday Market, Harsh Vihar, Mandoli Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2,3 & 4 Floor, Tower C, Vipul Take, Square Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurugram-122002 Key Take Solution A-23, Street No. 3, Chander Vihar Mandawali I.P Exchange Parparganj New Delhi-110092	Opposite Parties

 

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

16.12.2021                  17.02.2023                  21.04.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 18.10.2015, Complainant purchased a Samsung L.E.D T.V from the Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 51,300/- with one year guaranty from the Company and two years warranty from the Bajaj Company. The guaranty of the said T.V was expired in the year 2018. On 22.05.2021, T.V of the Complainant was not working and Complainant made a complaint to Opposite Party No. 1 vide complaint no. 4324862147. Complainant also informed the Opposite Party No. 2 (service centre of Opposite Party No.1) regarding the problem in T.V. On 29.05.2021, Company changed the panel of the said T.V and in this regard Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 16,790/-. Opposite Party No. 1 gave one year warranty for this panel. After three months, the T.V in question again stopped working. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the problem in T.V but Opposite Party did not take any action against this and only gave a false statement that they would repair the said T.V. After than Opposite Party No.1 send a message to the Complainant and stated that they would refund the Complainant’s money i.e. Rs. 16,790/- and then they would close the case of the Complainant but Complainant said that he would not accept the money. Complainant repeatedly asked the Opposite Party for repair the T.V but no action was taken by the Opposite Party till today which has caused the Complainant mental and physical harassment and financial loss. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to change the panel of the said L.E.D T.V or if there is no panel then Opposite Party may replace the old T.V with new one, to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation and to pay Rs. 25,000/- on account of the litigation charges.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is guilty of supressing material facts and baseless allegations of deficiency in service without any relevant documents have been made by the Complainant. On merits, it is averred by the Opposite Party that their technician replaced the panel and after that the product in question was working fine which is acknowledged by the Complainant himself in the job-sheet. It is further averred that the Complainant again approached them after three months with display issue and their technician again visited the Complainant place and inspected the product and found “liquid logged” and informed the Complainant that due to liquid logging the warranty in respect of the said product had become void and repair will be done on chargeable basis. It is also averred by the Opposite Party No.1 that during their next visit they found a V line on the panel and informed the Complainant that the panel needs to be replaced however the panel is not available in stock hence, they offered to refund the cost of panel which was Rs.16,790/-as a good will gesture but allegedly the Complainant did not respond and filed the present complaint to harass them and extort money. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 
3. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 in spite of service. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 08.08.2022.

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 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit in evidence wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. The Complainant has filed copy of Retail invoice of TV, Cash receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1 etc.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

6. In order to prove their case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahajiwani, Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party No. 1 having its office at 6^th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported by the documents namely copies of Warranty policy, Job sheet and invoice dated 23.05.2021, copy of job sheet dated 30.09.2021.

Arguments and Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and perused the record of the case.
8. From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, it is revealed that it is not disputed that the panel of the TV of the Complainant was changed by the opposite company for a price of Rs. 16,790/- which was paid by the Complainant. It is also established that the said panel was carrying one year warranty as is clear from the Cash Receipt filed by the Complainant.
9. The Complainant’s contention is that after three months, the T.V in question again stopped working and in spite of the fact that the Complainant informed the Opposite Party No.1 regarding the problem; Opposite Party did not take any action. On the other hand, Opposite Party stated that upon inspection of the product, they found “liquid logged”, hence, informed the Complainant that due to liquid logging the warranty in respect of the said product had become void and repair will be done on chargeable basis. During their next visit, the Opposite Party technician visited again and informed the Complainant that panel needs to be replaced. The Opposite Party further stated that since the said panel was not in stock, they offered to refund the cost of panel as a good will gesture.
10. From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, it is observed that the contention of the Opposite Party is that panel warranty had lapsed as the product was found liquid logged. The said contention cannot be accepted as the Opposite party has not filed any affidavit of the service engineer proving the fact that the warranty had lapsed.  Further, the Opposite Party admitted in their reply that they offered to refund the value of panel to the Complainant as the panel was not available in their stock which makes them liable for deficiency of service towards the Complainant.
11.  In the light of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party has been deficient in service by failing to replace the panel due to non-availability in their stock as they have failed to address the Complainant’s issue effectively which caused  the Complainant mental agony for considerable time.
12. Thus, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to refund to the Complainant the cost of panel to the tune of Rs. 16,790/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. Opposite Party is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks Opposite Party will be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. for the delayed period.
13. Order announced on 21.04.2023.

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)