Delhi

East Delhi

CC/890/2015

RAM KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  890/15

 

Shri Ram Kumar Jha

D-131, Anand Vihar

New Delhi – 110 092                                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower ‘C’

Vipul Tech Square, Old Golf Road

Sector-43, Gurgaon – 122 002                                          …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 27.11.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 18.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 18.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Ram Kumar Jha against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Samsung LED TV 23” model no. 23H4003 from Amazon online shopping on 11.12.2014 vide invoice no. HR-DEL2-139309741-1970 for an amount of Rs. 10,981/-.  He has stated that after some days, there was problem in screen (display) i.e. lining on screen and no display of picture on screen.  He made a complaint in Samsung Customer Care on 18.05.2015 under complaint no. 4194448227 after that technical engineer visited and told that screen was damaged, which was not under warranty.  He demanded an amount of           Rs. 8,000/- for repairing the same while TV was in warranty period and there was no physical damage. 

          He has also stated that at the time of installation, the problem was existing and the installation person told that the TV was alright and gets the cable connection tested/changed.  Even after cable line was changed and new setup box was got fixed, the problem was not solved.  He again made a complaint at customer care and also written a complaint to the Manager of Samsung India of dated 21.07.2015, but there was no response from their side. 

          The complainant made several requests at Samsung customer care for repair/replacement of TV, but they refused to do so.  Thus, he has stated that this has caused mental pain and agony for which he has claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.  Hence, he has prayed for direction to OP for repair/replace the TV or refund the cost of TV and to pay Rs. 25,000/- compensation on account of loss, mental pain and agony. 

3.       In the WS, filed on behalf of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP), they have stated that complainant have purchased a TV from Amazon, online, in a good condition, but due to mishandling of the TV by the complainant, some problem arose, which was totally due to the fault of the complainant and there was no deficiency of service on their part.  They have taken best possible methods to resolve the complaint, but the complainant was adamant for filing the complaint.

          The complainant contacted OP in the month of May, 2015, after using the said product almost 6 months without any defect.  There was no manufacturing defect.  The warranty of the product was void due to physical damage. 

          It has further been stated that their service engineer went to the place of complainant and told that panel of said product was damaged, which was due to physical damage.  The same was repairable on charges.  Other facts have also been denied.     

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of receipt issued by the respondent (Enx-1), copy of letter dated 21.07.2015 (Enx.-2) and copy of customer service record by the respondent (Enx.-3).

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Anindya Bose, authorized representative of OP, who have deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the WS. 

6.       We have heard complainant and counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that there was no deficiency on their part and the damage to TV was due to physical damage, which was not under warranty. 

          On the other hand, complainant have stated that from the very beginning, there was problem in screen i.e. display problem.  He has further stated that the report given by the service engineer was in respect of panel broken, which was not due to physical damage. 

          If the documents on record are perused, it is noticed that the complainant have only placed one service report, which shows “Panel Broken”.  This report is of dated 11.12.2015, which was given to the complainant on his complaint of dated 10.12.2015.  The date of purchase of TV is of 11.12.2014.  It means that the TV have been checked on 11.12.2015 on the complaint of 10.12.2015, after a period of one year. 

          There is no evidence on record in respect of screen display problem.  It seems that the screen display problem have been rectified by the company and the problem of panel broken was made after a period of about one year.  Neither the complainant nor OP have placed on record as to whether the panel broken was within the warranty or not.  So, it cannot be said that the problem of “Panel Broken” was repairable without any charge.  OP have stated in their testimony that the “Panel Broken” was chargeable, however, in the absence of any documentary proof, neither the version of complainant nor of OP can be accepted.  Though, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP, however, to maintain the cordial relations between the complainant and OP, we order as under:-

          “It is ordered that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. shall repair the panel, as stated in the service report “Panel Broken”, free of charge.  There is no order as to compensation and cost of litigation.”

          The order be complied within a period of 45 days, if not complied, the complainant shall be paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of service charges.   

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President