| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 481 of 6.12.2016 Decided on: 28.6.2017 Nirbhinder Singh son of Sewa Singh R/o VPO Rajinder Gargh Sarhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. …………...Complainant Versus - Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Tower-C, Vipual Tech Square, Sector 43, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana Through its Zonal Head.
- Kumar T.V. House Gurudwara Road, Rajpura Town, District Patiala through its Proprietor.
- Samsung Service Centre, Near Dayal Palace, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala through its Incharge.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Nirbhinder Singh,complainant in person. Sh.J.S.Sandhu,Advocae,counsel for OP no.1. Opposite parties No.2&3 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one Samsung LED on 12.12.2015 from Op no.2 for a sum of Rs.29,900/-.It is averred that from the very beginning the LED in question suffered from various problems i.e. hanging, screen colour problems etc.The complainant approached Op no.2 in the month of September,2016. Op no.2 sent an official of Samsung Company who assured that the necessary parts of the Led would be replaced after taking approval from OP no.1. The complainant kept on waiting for the replacement of the said parts but nobody came to replace the same. After waiting for a sufficient time, the complainant contacted OP no.2 who flatly refused to replace the said parts. The complainant requested the OPs many times verbally to repair the said LED or to replace the said LED with a new one but to no use. The said LED got defective during the warranty period and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the problem, amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act) 1986 praying for the rectification of the defects or replacement of the said LED with a new one alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.1,09,000/-
- On notice, OPs no.2&3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP no.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The only plea taken by Op no.1 is that the LED being “Damaged due to liquid logging” falls under warranty void condition. The repair if any to be done would be on chargeable basis but the complainant refused to get the LED repaired on chargeable basis. As per warranty terms, “physically damaged, mis handling, liquid logging” of product is not covered under warranty and repair is carried out on chargeable basis only. The OP no.1 has never denied any after sale service to the complainant and is even now ready to provide service to the complainant on chargeable basis. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
- Whereas counsel for OP no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose,DGM of Samsung India Electronics alongwith document,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP no.1 filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainant in person and the counsel for OP no.1 and also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one LED from OP no.2 on 12.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.29,900/-.In the month of September,2016, the said LED started giving problem and the complainant approached OP no.2, who sent its service engineer and the service engineer assured the complainant that the necessary parts of the LED would be replaced after taking approval from OP no.1.Thereafter, no body turned up to replace the defective part of the LED. Whereas the plea of the OP no.1 is that the complainant lodged a complaint on 25.10.2016 and the visiting service engineer found that the panel of the LED was damaged due to liquid logging which is warranty void condition and the repair has to be done on chargeable basis only and the complainant refused to get the said LED repaired on chargeable basis. Though the counsel for OP o.1 argued that the LED was damaged due to liquid logging which is a warranty void condition but he has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record which may show that liquid logging is a warranty void condition and the repair has to be done on chargeable basis only.The OPs were bound to rectify the LED, as it got defective during warranty period and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.1 to rectify the defect in the LED without charging any amount from the complainant. OP no.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be compiled by OP no.1 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:28.6.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
