Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 185.
Instituted on : 30.04.2018.
Decided on : 12.07.2019.
Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Dharampal r/o H.No.243-192/28, Subhash Nagar, Near Church, Railway Crossing, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics 20-24 Floor, Tuhorizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43 D & P.H-V, Gurgaon-122202.
- Reliace Retail Ltd., Minor Party Hall, Near Mansoraver, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Yogender Dalal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VED PAL, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a Samsung 49F HD Smart L.E.D., TV from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.72989.45/- on dated 30.06.2017. That after some days, defect appeared in the alleged T.V. and the complainant made a complaint on dated 18.07.2017 vide complaint no.4240616065 to the opposite party. That after repeated visits of the complainant, an engineer came and the defect was removed. Thereafter, a new problem appeared in the alleged L.E.D. and complainant filed a complaint no.4242773038 dated 16.08.2017 and the engineer changed plates etc. of the LED but after some time it again became defective. That complainant moved complaint on 09.04.2018 vide complaint no.4258140805. On 14.04.2018, the same was inspected by the Engineer but the defect was not removed. That despite repeated requests of the complainant, LED in question is neither replaced nor the amount has been refunded by the opposite parties. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the L.E.D. with new one or to refund the price of L.E.D. alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that in fact, the complainant in regard to his complaint, approached the company vide call no.4240616056 on 12.07.2017 for DEMO of his unit. The engineer of company visited the premises of the complainant and demo done, unit started working ok. After that the complainant again approached the company on 10.08.2017 vide call no.4242773038 and reported no picture problem in his unit. The unit was checked by the engineer but no defect was found. After that complainant again made complaint and the problem was resolved by replacement of PCB of the unit. After that complainant made complaint about LEFT SIDE HEATING problem but on checking no such problem was found. After that complainant never approached the answering opposite parties and directly filed the present complaint. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that opposite party No.2 is neither manufacturer nor contributes to the process of manufacturing at any stage. It only sells the electronic products of various manufacturers and therefore the role of opposite party No.2 is limited upto this extent only. That complainant is not eligible to receive any compensation from the opposite party no.2. It is prayed that present complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost qua opposite party No.2.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 12.02.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 13.06.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence on dated 23.04.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the LED in question on dated 30.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.72989.45/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the LED in question from the very beginning, which could not be not removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. Opposite party in its reply has admitted the fact that complainant contacted the opposite party for defect in the LED on 12.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 and on complaint dated 07.10.2017, PCB of the unit was replaced by the opposite party. Hence it is proved that the opposite party replaced some part for removing the defect in the alleged LED in question. But as per the complainant, the defect could not be removed even after replacement of PCB within warranty period.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant purchased the LED on 30.06.2017 and defect appeared only within one month of its purchase under warranty period but the opposite parties have neither repaired the LED nor replaced the same and also not refunded the price of LED in question. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being manufacturer is liable to replace the LED in question.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to replace the LED in question with a new one of same price and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the LED in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.07.2019.
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
