DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 613/2015
Date of Institution – 20/08/2015
Date of Order - 20/07/2016
In matter of
Gagan Misra , adult
C-324, Ground Floor
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi 110059………….…………………..………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1- M/s Jumbo Electronics Co Pvt Ltd.
S- 105-106, 2nd Floor,
V3S Mall, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92
2-Samsung India Pvt Ltd.
2nd,3rd & 4th Floor, Tower C
Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road
Gurgaon Sec 43, Gurgaon-122-2…………..………………….…………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate - Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Opponent 1,2 -Prashant Arora
Corum- Sh Sukhdev Singh- President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Mr. Gagan Misra, complainant, purchased Samsung LED TV from OP1 for a sum of Rs 25,900/- vide bill no. 7604 on 22/02/2015. The said TV developed automatic on off problem for which complaint was lodged with OP2 on 06/06/2015. It was checked by OP2’s engineer and found that mother board of TV had problem, so was changed.
Later on TV developed the same problem and again complaint was lodged with OP2. But this time no one attended the complaint to give service and since then the said TV was with the complainant and was function less. The said TV was under warranty.
For not providing services in warranty period and not responding to number of complaints lodged, complainant filed this complaint. He has claimed for refund of amount of TV which he paid to OP1 and compensation of sum of Rs 40,000/- with litigation charges Rs 10,000/-.
After perusal of complaint, notices were served. OP’s advocate filed their written statement where they denied all the allegations of complainant. They also admitted that they were ready to give services, but refused to refund the amount. OP 2 relied upon judgment under the head as “Shiv Prasad Industries VS Senior Machinery Co.” in (12006) CPJ 92 NC which says as –
“It is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired.”
Complainant filed his Rejoinder evidences on affidavit and OPs also filed their Evidences on affidavit which are on record.
On scrutinizing the complaint, evidences filed by the parties, it is clear that the said TV developed defects within warranty period which was once rectified, but the TV developed the same defect which means there was manufacturing defect and OP did not give services specially in warranty period. This amount to deficiency in services on the part of OPs though they have admitted that they were ready to provide services under warranty.
In view of the above after relying on the citation submitted by the OP that OP are bound to give services in warranty period.
This complaint is allowed and the following order is passed.
OP will rectify the defect within 30 days from the receive of this order and hand over the said LED TV in good working condition. They will also extend warranty for ONE year from the date of delivery of TV to the complainant. For non compliance of this order, OP shall refund entire amount paid by the complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realized.
We also award sum of Rs 8000/- as compensation for defective services and Rs 2000/- as litigation charges in time essence.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari -Member Mrs -Harpreet Kaur- Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
