Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/51/2016

Gobind Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh BM Singh

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.51 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 19.05.2016                             

                                                        Date of decision    : 16.06.2017

Gobind Singh,  aged about 44 years, son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of Kothi No.175, Modern Valley, near Jain Mandir, Sirhind-Chandigarh Road, Village Attewali, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,(Registered Office), 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon now Gurugram(NCR) 122002 through its authorized person/MD/GM/Manager.
2. Techno Solution, Opposite Goal Market, Near Krishna Mandir, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized person Aman Singla(Service Centre of Samsung).
3. Samsung Digital Plaza, Kabir Electronics, SCF 91, Phase-VII, Mohali, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar/Mohali through its authorized person(authorized dealer of Samsung India Electronics).

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.      

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                 

                Sh. Inder Jit, Member

Present :        Sh.Damandeep Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.           

                      Sh. G.S.Nagra, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.        

                      Opposite parties No.2 & 3 exparte

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Gobind Singh,  aged about 44 years, son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of Kothi No.175, Modern Valley, near Jain Mandir, Sirhind-Chandigarh Road, Village Attewali, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a Samsung LED Smart TV from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-, vide invoice No.KER-299 dated 04.05.2014. OP No.3 assured that the product is in warranty period of 5 years from the date of purchase and all the parts of the product are easily available in India with all the service centres of the company at cheaper rates, if required in future.  It was also assured by OP No.3 that the warranty card will be delivered to the complainant at the time of installation of the said LED TV at his home. After the purchase of LED, the employees of OP No.3 installed the product at the house of the complainant but they did not hand over the warranty card. When the complainant demanded the said warranty card telephonically, then OP No.3 assured that he will fill the warranty card as and when needed by the complainant.  In the month of March 2016, the LED TV in question suddenly stopped working and the wife of the complainant made a complaint on 17.03.2016 with the company on its customer care number, which was registered with OP No.1, vide complaint No.4210948187, but no one came to attend the complaint. Then on 22.03.2016 and 25.03.2016 the complainant made calls to customer care, vide call reference No.3703823797 and then on 26.03.2016, the service engineer of OP No.2 came to attend the complaint of the complainant and after checking the product, told the complainant that the power board of the product has failed and he will send mail to the company and will arrange the power board, as the product and parts are under warranty.  Thereafter, on 28.03.2016 and 29.03.2016, the complainant made phone calls to the company and the authorized person told the complainant that there is problem in the main card and power board or panel of the product and they would arrange the parts of the product very soon, but all in vain. Then again on 02.05.2016, the complainant lodged complaint with the company, vide complaint No.4213383344, but nobody came to attend the complaint. Thereafter, on 03.05.2016, when the complainant himself visited the premises of OP No.2, then it was stated by the authorized person of the service centre that spare parts of the product are not available with the company in India. The complainant then requested for return of his product, then it was advised to submit a cancelled cheque, copy of bill and copy of ID of the complainant. The complainant submitted all the above said documents with OP for return of the product and for receiving the amount on 04.05.2016. But on 09.05.2016, the complainant was informed by the OPs that his complaint was rejected. The complainant then approached OP No.3 and demanded the warranty card for showing the same to the company, but it put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant himself visited the website of the company and came to know that the warranty period of the product is 2 years instead of 5 years. Also the year of manufacture of the product was 2011 and sale year 2014, this fact was known when the product was opened by the service engineer. OP No.3 thus misled the complainant by concealing the warranty period/year of manufacture of the product. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to gross negligence, carelessness, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.1,75,000/- i.e. price of the LED TV and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
3.  Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. But OPs No.2 and 3 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed the written version.  In the written version OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum as he has concealed the true and correct facts; the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, it stated that the warranty of LED TV had expired on 03.05.2015 and no complaint has been lodged with the OPs with regard to the non-working of LED TV in question. The service centre of the OPs has never refused to render services with regard to the LED TV in question. The complainant neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert or report of any qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged defects in the LED TV. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Moreover, the product is now not under warranty and OP is only thus liable to repair or replace the defective parts of the product in question on chargeable basis. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.           In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copies of invoice  Ex. C-2, true copies of documents regarding LED TV Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5, true copy of cancelled cheque Ex. C-6, copy of call history Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence.. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP1/1, copy of warranty card Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence.
6.           The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that OP No.3 misled the complainant by concealing the "make" and "year of manufacture" of the LED TV in question, which is actually "Korea" and "2011" respectively and that he sold the LED TV as a make of Samsung and year of manufacture 2014. This act amounts to unfair trade practice. He verbally told the complainant that the warranty is for 5 years, but never handed over the warranty card to the complainant and also never rectified the LED in question, which amounts to deficiency in service. 
7. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued in favour of Samsung India and brought only the documentary proof in respect of warranty one year period and the conditions pertaining to it and stated that LED could not be repaired free of cost because the warranty period had expired before the defect appeared in the LED.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written as well as oral submissions, we find force in the submissions of counsel for the complainant.  OP No.3 has tried to mislead the complainant by concealing the facts, which amounts to unfair trade practice and also did not provide services to repair the LED, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct OP No.3 to get the LED technically inspected by an expert of his choice and rectify the defects in it free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant. If the defect is irreparable, the said LED be replaced with new one of the same value. Apart from it complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.6000/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by OP No.3. The compensation and the costs be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulated period, it shall carry 9% interest p.a. till its realization
9.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 02.06.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:16.06.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)  

      President

 

(Inder Jit)            

 Member