Delhi

East Delhi

CC/413/2017

ARMAAN CHOPRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

                 CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

        CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                    Consumer Complaint no.           413/2017

                                                                                    Date of Institution                   26/10/2017

                                                                                    Order Reserved on                  15/10/2019

                                                                                    Date of Order                           17/10/2019 

In matter of

Mr Armaan Chopra          

s/o Sh Ashok Chopra    

R/o  B 10 Upper Ground Floor

Govind Pura Krishna Nagar Delhi 110051.………..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

M/s Samsung India Pvt Ltd.

R.O.- A 25, Ground Floor,

Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044………………………………….Opponent   

 

Complainant’ Advocate                          Mr Sanjay Soti  

Opponent’s Advocate                             Prashant Arora & Aso. 

 

Quorum            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                          

Complainant purchased Samsung LED TV vide model no. Samsung LED UA40F6400 from Kalpana Digital World having invoice no. K-01937/17-18 on 21/06/2017 for a sum of Rs 40,000/-through credit card payment and given  standard warranty of one year (Ex CW1/Anne B,Bi&Bii)/ and TV was installed by service engineer through OP.

It was stated that after using up to 16/08/2017, developed some defects so complaint was lodged with OP vide complaint no. 23150546. The service engineer attended the complaint and stated that the display screen would be replaced as showing defect (Ex CW1/AnneC) and on 21/08/2017 complainant received SMS from OP that estimate was not approved and it would be intimated (Ex CW1/Anne.D).

Seeing callous attitude of OP, filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of LED TV Rs 40,000/- with compensation for mental harassment Rs 25,000/- and Rs 25,000/- as litigation charges. 

OP in their written statement denied all the allegations alleged against them. It was stated that due to physical damage found by their service engineer (Ex OPW/1)  standard warranty became void which was due to careless handling of TV screen resulted scratches on screen. So screen would had been changed and for this complainant had to bear the cost as per their terms and conditions marked here as Ex OPW1/2 and this fact was very well intimated through SMS which clearly reads as “Estimate not approved”. It was stated that OP being an international manufacturing electronic goods and all such goods carry one year standard warranty of one year from the date of purchase which does not mean that physical damages would be considered under the warranty terms.  

It was also submitted that mere having defects which could be removed or defective part would be replaced except physical damages or defects, not to be replaced whole unit and this fact was well explained in various higher courts judgments as few were mentioned here pertaining to this case. The citation as Sushila Automobiles Ltd vs Dr Birendra Narain & others, 3(2010)CPJ 130(NC) and Stereocraft vs Monotype India Ltd., 2000 NCJ 59 SC where it was held that terms and conditions under warranty does not cover refund or replacement and consumer could not claim refund during or after lapse of warranty conditions. Hence there was no deficiency in their services, but OP was ready to replace the defective part on paying its cost.

Complainant filed his rejoinder where he denied all the replies made by OP. He relied on his invoice and SMS message received from OP as estimate not approved He also submitted evidence through his own affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that after relying on cash memo CW1/1 and SMS reply CW1/2, his LED TV was not serviced by service engineer of OP as the said TV had manufacturing defect and was under warranty. So all facts of his complaint were correct and true and claim be awarded in his favour. 

OP submitted evidence on affidavit through Mr Anoop Kumar Mathur, AR with OP and stated that OP had worked as per warranty terms and condition set by manufacture and it was evident from evidence OPW/1 and 2 that damages was due to mishandling on TV screen and due to scratch, warranty terms was violated and for replacement its cost had to be paid by the complainant under warranty conditions. It was also submitted that “Estimate not approved” means physical damages were not covered under warranty and cost of screen had to be paid as per the actual cost and till final approval had to come, complainant had filed the complaint. Hence, there was no deficiency in services and complaint may be dismissed.     

Arguments were heard from both the party counsels and after perusal of records on file, order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that said LED TV was under warranty, but presence of scratch marks on screen were due to external cause and understanding meaning of “Estimate not approved” means to get the estimate of cost of screen to be replaced which was not covered under warranty conditions hence warranty conditions were violated. Though there is no merit in this complaint and deserves to be dismissed, but OP had no where denied to provide their services, so we direct complainant to get his LED TV-Screen replaced from authorized service center under warranty terms & conditions within 45 days from receiving of this order copy. OP is directed not to charge their service charges as said TV was under warranty. There shall be no order to cost or any direction to OP.

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member

 

                  

                                                          Sukhdev Singh  President