Haryana

Sonipat

CC/189/2016

kamal Sardana S/o Bhagwan Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sargam Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu Malik

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.189 of 2016                                              Instituted on:02.06.2016

                                Date of order:19.12.2016

 

Kamal  Sardana son of Shri Bhagwan Dass Sardana, resident of Villa No.289, Block-A, Omaxe City, Sonepat.

..Complainant.

                      Versus

1.Sargam Electronics, 51/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta road, Opp. Khalsa College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 through its proprietor.

2.Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Old Golf road, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director/Manager.

3.Samsung Service Centre, D.R. Trading Company, near Batra Petrol Pump, Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat.

                                           ..Respondents

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 in person.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar,Adv. for respondents no.2 and 3.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 08.11.2015, near the festival of Diwali (11.11.2015) he has purchased certain electronics items as fully detailed in Annexure-A worth Rs.2,16,000/- from respondent no.1.  The items worth Rs.2,16,000/- also includes the amount of Samsung LED Model NO.UA-55J6300  worth Rs.1,19,000/-.  The above said items were purchased by the complainant from the respondent no.1 for his newly built Villa No.289 Block-A, Omaxe City, Sonepat, the possession of which was taken by the complainant from Omaxe Ltd. vide conveyance deed no.1605 dated 15.05.2015 as detailed in Annexure-B.   It was already brought in the notice of the respondent no.1 that the complainant is purchasing the above said electronic items for the installation of the same in his newly built Villa at Omaxe City, Sonepat and the LED will be got installed by the complainant after completion of the work of Villa and it was assured by the respondent no.1  that the complainant need not to worry regarding installation of the LED because the warranty starts from the date of installation and not from the date of purchase, and the same will be got installed by the respondent no.1 immediately at one call as and when complainant desires.  After taking the possession of the Villa No.289 Block A, Omaxe City, Sonepat, the complainant in the month of January, 2016 has started the white wash, fitting of furniture, renovation of bathroom & kitchen and some other alteration of his choice and it has been completed near about on 15.04.2016.  The LED worth Rs.1,19,000/- purchased by the complainant from respondent no.1 remained untouch, without any tampering and in the safe custody of the complainant as was handed over by the respondent no.1 to the complainant.   After completion of the work of newly built Villa No.289, Block A, Omaxe City, Sonepat, the complainant intends to get install the new LED and for this purpose, he asked the respondent no.1.  The respondent no.1 for installation of the LED asked the service centre of Samsung i.e. respondent no.3.  On 21.4.2016, the respondent no.3 visited the Villa NO.289, Block A, Omaxe City, Sonepat.  The complainant handed over the Sealed Box containing LED, which was opened by the respondent no.3.  The respondent no.3 installed the LED at its proper place.  But to the surprise of the complainant and respondent no.3, the LED could not get start/ON even after the best efforts of the respondent no.3.   The respondent no.3 confirmed the complainant that the LED is without any tampering, but there is some mechanical defect in the LED due to which, it has not been started/ON.  The respondent no.3 asked the complainant that they will visit the site again after 2/3 days with some expert engineer.  After 3 days i.e. on 24.04.2016, the respondent no.3 and 2/3 other expert engineers came to the site and they also made their best efforts, but in vain because LED could not start/ON.  The respondent no.3 and the other expert engineers asked the complainant to allow them to open the LED to check the defects.  But the complainant did not allow them to open the LED, because it was new branded LED and first time it was opened by the respondent no.3 on 21.4.2016.  The complainant requested respondents no.1 and 2 and requested them either to replace the LED with new one of the same model or to refund the cost of the LED, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present case.

2.        The respondents appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has purchased one Samsung LED on 8.11.2015 from respondent no.1 for Rs.1,19,000/-.  As a normal practice, the respondent no.1 register request to brand customer care for product installation and for product complaints, it is the manufacturer and principal service provider i.e. respondent no.3 to decide the repair or replacement or refund of the product.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          The respondents no.2 and 3 have submitted in their written statement that on 21.4.2016, on the complaint of the complainant, the engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant for repair, but they were not allowed by the complainant to repair the unit and the complainant was adamant to get replacement of the unit.  The complainant  has lodged the complaint after five months from the date of its purchase. So, the unit is repairable and it cannot be replaced in any manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant, respondent no.1 and ld. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have supplied the defective piece of LED which even could not start/on despite the best efforts of the service man of the respondents no.1 and 2.  The complainant has requested the respondents either to replace the defective LED with new one or to refund the cost of LED alongwith interest and compensation, but the respondents have refused to accede to the legal and genuine requests of the complainant and that amounts to grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          The respondent no.1 has submitted that the complainant has purchased one Samsung LED on 8.11.2015 from respondent no.1 for Rs.1,19,000/-.  As a normal practice, the respondent no.1 register request to brand customer care for product installation and for product complaints, it is the manufacturer and principal service provider i.e. respondent no.3 to decide the repair or replacement or refund of the product.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted in their written statement that on 21.4.2016, on the complaint of the complainant, the engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant for repair, but they were not allowed by the complainant to repair the unit and the complainant was adamant to get replacement of the unit.  The complainant  has lodged the complaint after five months from the date of its purchase. So, the unit is repairable and it cannot be replaced in any manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2&3.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief from the respondents or not?

          We have perused the entire reply and affidavit of the respondent no.2 and 3 very carefully, but in the entire reply & affidavit, the respondents no.2 and 3 have no where mentioned the date of installation of the LED in question. It is also no where proved that before delivery of LED in question to the complainant, it was checked in the presence of the complainant.  It also cannot be believed that prior to 21.4.2016, the LED was not installed at the premises of the complainant.  However, since the LED in question is in warranty period, the respondents are liable to repair the same free of costs.  Thus, in the interest of justice, it is directed to the respondents no.2 and 3 to repair the LED in question of the complainant free of cost and without charging any amount from the complainant and to set right the LED in question in proper working condition within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

Certified copy of this order be provided to both the

parties free of cost.
          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (JL Gupta)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 19.12.2016.