Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/811

BRIJESH SOLANKI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 811/2015

 

Brijesh  Solanki,

51, Cottage Enclave,

A-4, Paschim  Vihar,

New Delhi-110063                                                        ..…. Complainant

VERSUS

 

1. Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

A-3/183, Paschim Vihar,

         New Delhi-110063                                       …..Opposite Party No. 1

 

 

2. Samsung Indian Electronics Limited.

Address:- Sector, 43, Gurgaon,

Haryana 122009……                                            Opposite Party No.2

      

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant had purchased Plasma TV of 51 inches of Samsung from Sargam Showroom on 26.01.2015 invoice No.  SPV 05530. It is the case of Complainant that on 28.05.2015 when the family was watching TV, they checked a spot  in the middle of screen/display.  They switched off TV and on next day they saw a full line in the middle of screen of TV Set and thereafter it stopped working.  Complainant sent oral and written complaints directly to Samsung Company to change TV set upon which Samsung Company reputed one person who visited their house but could not find out the fault in the TV and thus returned. Complainant made another complaint upon which another person was sent who mentioned that there was a scratch inside the TV Screen and returned by saying that it was internal fault and thereafter did not visit them.    Complainant kept on requesting the OPs for rectification of the fault but all in vain.  Hence the present complaint for refund of sale amount of Rs. 63,500/- with compensation for harassment.

2. OP-1 filed written statement admitting that complainant had purchased the TV as stated in the complaint manufactured by OP-2.   The service engineer who checked product found no manufacturing defect.  OP -1 forwarded the complaint to the manufacturer OP-2 for doing the needful.  No cause of action arose against OP-1.  OP-2 filed reply denying contents of the complaint. OP-2 submitted that complainant  had purchased TV from OP-1 in good condition but due to mishandling of TV  by complainant some problem arose which was totally due to negligence of complainant  and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 .  OP-2 further mentioned that in fact service engineer went to complainant’s residence on 20.06.2015 and found the product broken and thus made estimate of Rs. 20,000/- for resolving the complaint because a panel of said product was broken.  Due to aforesaid physical damage OP-2 was not obliged to repair or replace the said product. 

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. He has filed copy of Invoice Ex-CW1/1, Photographs of the TV Ex-CW1/2  On the other hand Ms Anindya Bose A/R has filed affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. He has mentioned pictures of broken product as Annexure-A.

4.     We have gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by both the parties.

5.     The real controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claim sought in his complaint or not.  The factual position is not in dispute.  The only dispute is that complainant claimed that the product was defective which went out of order within six months of its purchase whereas the plea taken by OP-2 is that due to physical damage caused by the complainant the repair could not be carried out.  It is strange as to where from OP-2 inferred that the product was suffering from physical damage caused by complainant.  The OP-2 has also failed to place on record the report of so called engineer who reported the physical damage. Therefore the plea taken by OP is totally baseless and it does not hold water. Failure to repair a damaged product within warranty period make out a case of deficiency in service on part of the OPs.

6.       Keeping in view the discussion stated above we allow the complaint    and  pass an award  for refund of  depreciated  amount of Rs. 58,000/- and further we award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses  to be paid by OP  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.

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

File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced this____16TH__ day of    August__ ___ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                   (PUNEET LAMBA)                      PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER