Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1092/2013

GAJENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 1092/13

Sh. GAJENDER JHA

S/O SHRI SATYA NARYAN JHARAJEEV GUPTA

R/O 30/62 B, GALI NO.8, VISWAS NAGAR,

SHADHRA,

1.  

                                                                                                                           ….Complainant

Vs

 

SHIVAM ENTERPRISES

OFF-7/74 A, BHIM GALI, MAIN 60 FEET

ROAD VISWAS NAGAR SHADHRA DELHI-110032                                                                                                                                                                                           ….Opponent

Date of Institution: 17.12.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 07.03.2017

Judgment Passed on: 07.03.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

ORDER BY: Mr. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)

JUDGEMENT

1. Complainant Shri. Gajender Jha has filed the complaint against Shivam Enterprises (OP), Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service.
2. Complainant Mr. Gajender Jha purchased a LED TV Samsung LA 22C480 22 inch vide “bill no. 1364 for a sum of Rs.13,600/-  on 02/08/2013. It has been stated that in the month of November 2013, the LED was stopped for which complaint on the customer care of the respondent no.2 vide complaint no.8438145125 dated 21/11/2013 was made. The complainant was surprised when executive of the respondent visited the house of the complainant and he checked the LED. He told to the complainant that LED TV was out of warranty. The Complainant showed the bill and told to the executive that LED was purchased on 02/08/2013. However executive of the respondent told that the LED was sold prior two year in the record of the company. The complainant immediately visited at the office of the respondent and asked about the same, but the respondent along with his employee misbehaved and used dirty language and also threatened to the complainant. The complainant visited so many times at the shop of the complainant, but no response was given. Thus, it has been stated that there has been deficiency on the part of the respondent. Hence, the complainant has prayed for change or refund of the cost of the LED Rs. 13,600/- “Rs.50,000/- compensation on account of harassment and Rs.25,000/- cost of litigation.  
3. Notice of the complaint was given to OP. OP-2 filed its written statement, however no written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP-2, they have taken various pleas such as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the complaint. Complaint has been filed to extract compensation from the respondent without deficiency in services. No proof has been put on record to show that LED stopped working. Other pleas have also been denied.
4. In support of his case the complainant examined himself. He deposed on affidavit the facts which have been stated in the complaint. He has placed on record the bill issued by Shyam enterprises for an amount of Rs.13,600/- which is of dated 02/08/2013. No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 despite opportunity.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) that there has been no deficiency on their part, as the complainant has not alleged the same in the complaint itself. If we look into the complaint, it is noticed that in the complaint the complainant have alleged deficiency on the part of Shyam Enterprises (OP-1), when he states that on pointing out by executive of OP that “LED was out of warranty” he approached OP-1 who misbehaved and threatened. The fact that no deficiency has been alleged on the part of OP-2, the question of any liability of OP-2 does not arise.
6. Coming to the deficiency on the part of OP-1, the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of OP-1 and the testimony of complainant have gone unchallenged, the version given by executive of Samsung when he visited the complainant that “LED have already been sold” as per their record in the year 2011, this plea has to be accepted, as bill issued by Shyam enterprises dated 02/08.2013 on the back of it contains “it has been sold out two years back”. Thus, the fact remains that Shyam Enterprises might have sold this LED on 01/08/2011 which might have been returned and it has been resold to the complainant by issuing the bill of dated 02/08/2013. By doing so Shyam Enterprises have indulged in unfair trade practices as well as by not getting the LED serviced there has been deficiency on their part. Under these circumstances the liability can be fastened on Shyam Enterprises (OP-1). Therefore, it is ordered that Shyam Enterprises will replace the LED of the same and equivalent model. Since the act of the OP-1 have led to harassment and mental agony, the compensation for an amount of Rs.10,000/- is also ordered, this includes the cost of litigation also. The order be complied within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order. If “LED Samsung LA 22C480 22 inch” is not replaced by the same model, the complainant be paid an amount of Rs.13,600/- the bill amount. Non compliance of the order within the stipulated period will carry interest @ 9% on the awarded amount from the date of filing till realization.

 Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

        MEMBER                                                                                            MEMBER

 

                                                (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                           PRESIDENT