Punjab

Patiala

CC/16/462

Reetu Varinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh K S Rajpal

09 May 2018

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Patiala
Patiala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/462
( Date of Filing : 17 Nov 2016 )
 
1. Reetu Varinder
c/o BFL,H.No.2016/169, shai Samadahan Road Patiala
Paiala
punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics
2-the to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre Golf Course Raod Sector 43 DLF,Ph-V, Gurgaon , Haryana 122202 through its authorized Signatory
Gurgaon
Haryana
2. 2.Samsung India Electronics
Pvt ltd 1, Lowr Mall Raghu Majra Opp. Budha Dal lPublic School Patiala s-147001 Branch Jolly Sales corporation through its Authorized Signatory .
Patiala
punjab
3. 3.M/s B.S. Electronics Authorized
Samsung Service Center Shop No.203 1 Rajbaha Road Inside gill ClicalLaboratory Patiala through its Authoized Signatory
Patialal
punjab
4. 4.Bajaj Finserv ,
Near gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib Patiala though its Authorized Signotory
patiala
punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Neelam Gupta PRESIDING MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 09 May 2018
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 462 of 17.11.2016

                                      Decided on:            9.5.2018

 

Reetu Varinder C/o BFL, H.No.2016/169, Shahi Samadhan Road, Patiala(Mobile No.94638-45658)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

  1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,2th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, PH-V,Gurgaon, Haryana-122202, Ph.91-124-488-1234 through its Authorized Signatory.
  2. Jolly Sales corporation Patiala, authorized dealer

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,1, Lower Mall, Raghu Majra, Opp. Budha Dal Public School, Patiala-147001.

  1. M/s B.S.Electronics, Authorized Samsung Service Center, Shop No.203, 1 Rajbaha road, Insite Gill Clinical Laboratory, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory/Prop.
  2. Bajaj Finserv, Near Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Gurinderjit Singh,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                       Sh.J.S.Sandhu,Advocate, counsel for

                                          opposite party No.1.

                                       Opposite Parties No.2&3 ex-parte.

                                       Sh.Gaurav Singla,Advocate,counsel for

                                          Opposite party No.4

 

                                     

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

  1. The complainant purchased one LED Sr. No.HDIG32EF700116 and a mobile phone from OP No.2 vide invoice No.1675 dated 18.11.2015, for a sum of Rs.37,750/- and Samsung mobile phone, Model J-500(Black) 352672073510158, vide invoice No.1087 dated 18.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.11800/-.The OP No.2 did not supply the warranty card and the copy of loan agreement, to the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance vide receipt No.549 dated 10.11.2015. The rest of the amount the complainant got financed from OP no.4 through OP no.2. It is averred that the complainant availed only one loan against the said products whereas the receipts issued by OP no.4, revealed that the EMIs were being adjusted against two loan accounts bearing No.4390CD177749549 and 4390CD17749612.Both the loan accounts showed the asset description as Samsung LED/32H5570 and Samsung LED/32H5570, which showed that the complainant purchased only one LED but two loan accounts were opened by OP no.4. It is further averred that both the products were under one year warranty.
  2. In the month of November,2016, the said LED got defective and the complainant lodged a complaint with OP no.1, who sent his service engineer and OP no.3 i.e. the service centre gave an estimate of Rs.18562/- as repair charges. As the defect occurred during the warranty period, the complainant is not liable to pay the same. Failure on the part of the OPs to repair the said LED free of cost amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
  3. On notice, OPs No.1&4 appeared through their counsel and filed their reply to the complaint whereas OPs no.2&3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
  4. In the reply filed by OP no.1, it has admitted the fact that the LED in question was purchased from OP no.2 vide invoice No.1675 dated 18.11.2015 for Rs.37750/-.Regarding the purchase of Samsung mobile Phone J500 vide invoice No.1087 dated 18.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.11800/-, it has denied the fact for want of knowledge. The only plea taken by Op no.1 is that the LED in question got damaged due to ‘liquid logging’ which is a warranty void condition and the repair would be done on chargeable basis.It is an admitted fact that the complainant submitted her LED with OP no.3 on 11.11.2016 vide job card No.801 and OP no.3 gave an estimate of repair, Rs.18562/-towards the price of the panel of the LED and repair charges as ‘liquid logging’ is a warranty void condition, the repair would be done on chargeable basis and the complainant is not entitled for the replacement or refund of the price of the LED.Hence, it was prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with cost.
  5. In the reply filed by Op no.4, it has submitted that the complainant had availed two loans i.e.

Loan account No.

Amount financed

Date of disbursement

EMI

Term

Product

4390CD177749549

Rs.30,000/-

30.11.2015

2500/-

12 months

4390CD17744912

Rs.30,000/-

30.11.2015

2500/-

12 months

Samsung LED

It is further submitted that copy of the loan application, loan term sheet and promissory note were duly signed by the complainant. The complainant in the complaint has alleged that he had taken only one loan whereas he had availed two loans. OP No.4 has already disbursed the loan amount to OP no.3, therefore, the complaint should take up the said matter with Op no.3 only. Hence OP no.3 is liable for any deficiency with regard to the two different loan accounts. Thus, it was prayed to close the matter.

  1. In support of the case of the complainant, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
  2. The ld. counsel for OP no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose, Dy.Gen. Manager of Samsung India Elec. alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence of OP no.1
  3. The Ld. counsel for OP no.4 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Shivani Garg, Assist Legal Manager of Bajaj Finance alongwith documents Exs.OP3 to OP5 and closed the evidence of OP no.4.
  4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments, filed by the ld. counsels for the complainant and OP no.1 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
  5. In the present case, two issues are involved. First regarding defect in the LED and the second relating to loan account. Exs.C2 & C3 are the copies of the invoices, whereby the complainant purchased the LED in question and a mobile phone from OP no.2 on 18.11.2015. Ex.C1 is the copy of the receipt, vide which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-as advance to OP no.2 for the purchase of one LED and a mobile phone on 10.11.2015.Ex.C5 is the copy of job sheet dated 11.11.2016, whereby the complainant took the LED in question for repair to OP no.3 and OP no.3 gave an estimate of Rs.18562/- for repairing the said LED. Ex.C4 is the estimate given by OP no.3 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the ‘panel is broken’ and the repair would be done on chargeable basis i.e. Rs.18,562.42P.
  6. Whereas Op no.1 has placed on record Ex.OP1 i.e. the warranty card, wherein as per condition No.7, “ in case of any damage to the product/misuse detected by the authorized service centre personnel, the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargeable basis only”. The LED in the present case got damaged due to ‘liquid logging’ which is a physical damage hence it became warranty void. As per condition No.7 of the warranty card, the repair would be done on chargeable basis only. Hence the complainant is not entitled for refund or replacement of the LED.
  7. Regarding the second issue i.e. the loan account, the complainant has alleged that he purchased one LED and a mobile phone for a sum of Rs.37,750/- and Rs.11,800/- ( i.e. Rs.49550/- total) on 18.11.2015, for which he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance and the rest of the amount he got it financed from OP no.4.Allegation of the complainant is that when she went through the receipts issued by Op no.4, she came to know that the payment of EMIs was being adjusted against the loan accounts bearing No.4390CD17749549 and 4390CD17749612.The case of the complainant is that direction be issued to the OPs No.2&4 to clarify the complainant’s loan account and also to adjust the amount paid by her in one loan account.OP no.4 has placed on record Ex.OP4 i.e. ‘Consumer Finance Application Form’, whereby the complainant availed loan of Rs.60,000/- for two LEDs, from OP no.4 which has been duly signed by the complainant. Ex.OP5, is the ‘loan term sheet’ as well as the ‘Promissory Note’ dated 18.11.2015, whereby the complainant availed a loan of Rs.60,000/- repayable in 12 monthly installments of Rs.5000/-each. This document is also duly signed by the complainant. From these documents, it is very much clear that the OP no.4 had disbursed the loan amount after  receiving the duly filled in and signed proposal form as well as the promissory note. Hence the plea of the complainant that she had availed only one loan, gets falsified.
  8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Certified copies 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:9.5.2018                  

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ Neelam Gupta]
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.