Delhi

North West

CC/946/2014

RAHUL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

   CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 946/2014

 

 

No. __________________    Dated : ____________________

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

RAHUL SINGH S/o SH. NAND KISHOR SINGH,

R/O FLAT No. A-701, 6^th FLOOR, PLOT No. 21,

DIVYA APARTMENTS, SECTOR-10,

DWARKA,NEW DELHI-110075.                              …COMPLAINANT

 

,

 

VERSUS

 

 

 

1. M/s SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,

    498, KOHAT ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA, DELHI-110034.

 

2. M/s SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,

    A-25, GROUND FLOOR, FRONT TOWER,

    MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE,

    DELHI-110044.           …OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM:  SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT     

               SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

          MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER                   

 

                    Date of Institution: 21.08.2014

                       Date of Decision: 11.01.2018

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                                                            ORDER

 

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 1 of 8

alleging that the complainant purchased a Samsung LCD LA-40D550 Television Set from OP-1 on 20.12.2011 for a consideration of Rs.43,000/- vide cash memo/invoice no. SP-3390 and at the time of purchasing the said TV, the sales executive of OP-2 fully convinced the complainant that the product is of highest quality and durable for at least five years and at the same time OP guaranted for free service/replacement of parts during the period from the date of purchase. The complainant further alleged that all of a sudden, the TV set went out of order/stopped functioning on 07.09.2013 and on the same day the complainant complained to call centre of OP-2 about the above defect vide complain no. 8438404893 dated 07.09.2013 and after the complain an engineer of OP-2 visited the complainant’s premises and without examining the TV set stated that “it seems that PANEL of the TV set is not working and has to be replaced”. Thereafter, on persuasion of the complainant the engineer checked the TV set and confirmed that the Panel of the TV set is not working and it has to be replaced and at that time he gave verbal estimate of Rs.25,000/- for the Panel replacement to be borne by the complainant apart from Rs.1,000/- of replacement charges and on enquiry of the complainant the engineer further stated that warrantee of the replaced new panel will not be more than one month. The complainant further alleged

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 2 of 8

 that the defect that crept in the TV set is not a user caused defect but a manufacturing defect and hence this is the responsibility of the OPs to remove/replace the same with another new one free of cost. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 01.02.2014 to the OPs through his counsel calling upon the OPs to pay Rs.43,000/- towards the cost of TV set and Rs.50,000/- towards mental harassment, pain and agony caused to the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice but OPs did not get any reply for the same and the complainant alleged that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the MRP of the TV set i.e. the amount of Rs.43,000/- to the complainantas well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony frustration, monetary, wastage of time, conveyance etc. and has also sought Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation.

3.       The OPs have been contesting the case and filed their separate written statement/reply. In written statement, OP-1 admitted that the complainant has purchased a Samsung LCD LA- 40D550 TV set from OP-1 on 20.12.2011 of Rs.43,000/-. OP-1 further submitted that sales executives informed the customer about free service/replacement of parts during the warrantee period and the warrantee

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 3 of 8

          period is always mentioned on the warrantee card which is provided with the product and as per the complainant’s first complaint received of the product on 07.09.2013 and after 21 months of its purchase and after nine months of expiry of warrantee period. OP-1 further submitted that when the complaint was received from the complainant about the product the same was forwarded to principle service provider that is also OP-2 in this case and the reply received from the service provider is that the complainant has refused to pay the charges of parts and the complainant wants that the parts be replaced free of cost and OP-1 further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       OP-2 in its reply submitted that the complainant had purchased a TV set after having full satisfaction and the complainant has filed the present complaint without any cause of action in order to extract money in the form of compensation from OP-2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and the complaint is thus liable to be dismissed.OP-2 further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the TV set and the panel set was not warranted by the terms & conditions of the warrantee and the product in question carries a warrantee for a period of one year.

 

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 4 of 8

5.       The complainant filed rejoinder to reply of OPs and denied the contentions of OPs.

6.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of retail invoice dated 20.12.2011 for purchase of Samsung TV of Rs.43,000/- and copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to the OPs through speed post alongwith AD card.

7.       On the other hand on behalf of OP-1Sh. Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative for OP-1 and Sh. Anindya Bose, Authorized Representative for OP-2 filed their separate evidence by way of affidavits. OPs also filed their separate written arguments.

8.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Though the complainant has not placed on record any job card or service report but the OPs have not disputed the fact the complainant lodged complaint about defect in LCD TV on 07.09.2013 and OPs have not disputed the version of the complainant that the engineer of the OP-2 who inspected the product has found that the Panel of the LCD TV is not working and has to be replaced with a new Panel which will cost Rs.25,000/-. It

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 5 of 8

          is not expected that the product of an International brand would become defective within 21 months of its purchase. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaint in respect of a new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of defects in the product which is a branded LCD TV of a world fame manufacturer. It is also not expected that a customer/complainant would have purchased LCD TV for 1 year only. Accordingly, OP-2 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

9.       Accordingly, OP-2 is directed as under: -

i)        To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,000/- being the price of LCD TV excluding VAT on return of the old defective LCD TV.

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation including litigation cost towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

10.     The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may

 

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 7 of 8

          approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11.     Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 11^thday of January, 2018.

 

BARIQ AHMAD     USHA KHANNA     M.K.GUPTA

(MEMBER) (MENBER)            (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC No. 946/2014                                                                        Page 8 of 8