Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 12.
Instituted on : 05.01.2022.
Decided on : 18.09.2023.
Mrs. Manju Saini(age 55 years) w/o Randhir Singh Saini R/o H.No.328/21, Ladhot Road, Mata Wali Gali Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- SARGAM Electronics, Through its Director/Authorized Signatory, Raj Complex, Adjoining Tata Motors Showroom, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001(HR).
- SARGAM Electronics, Through its Director/Authorized Signatory, Commercial Complex, Garg Trade Centre, Dr. K.N.Katzoo Marg, Sector-11E, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Devrat Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased an LED of Samsung from the opposite party no.1 on dated 20.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.107000/-. On the assurance of respondent no.1’s Executive, complainant had also purchased the extended warranty for the above mentioned product from the respondent no.1 and paid Rs.17000/- for the extended warranty. In the first week of October 2021, when the technical problem arose in the alleged LED, the complainant apprised the same to the opposite party no.1 about the problem vide reference no.4334222446. At the initial stage respondents had assured The complainant about the solution of the problem in reference to the LED. But lateron they started making excuses on one pretext or the other. Due to delay in performance of service, complainant faced and is still facing harassment. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the product as it is covered under the extended warranty and also to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a Samsung LED TV vide Invoice No.Rohtak-561 dated 20.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.107000/- with extended warranty of 3 years from the respondent no.1. It is also admitted that complainant paid Rs.17000/- for the 3 years extended warranty. The complaint of said LED was registered with Samsung vide call no.4333764792 and call no.4334222446 and the same was attended by authorized franchisee of Samsung that is M/s B2X Service Solution. It is further submitted that after visit of technician the required part was ordered by the franchisee and closer date 02.11.2021 was given to repair the said LED. The opposite parties tried their best to get the said LED repaired through authorized service center of the manufacturer. But the authorized service centre of the manufacturer has informed thorough mail on 30.10.2021 that the required part is not available with Samsung company. Hence the said LED could not be repaired. As per terms and conditions of the respondent, the complainant was offered depreciation of the said LED but complainant did not give consent for the sane rather refused it through mail dated 30.10.2021. It has been clearly mentioned in terms and conditions of warranty that “ in case of product is non repairable due to non-availability of components/parts thereof, then the invoice value of the product will be refunded after deducting 20% depreciation by way of straight line Method, to be charged annually”. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, after filing reply opposite parties did not appear on 20.12.2022 and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.12.2022 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his exparte evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on dated 18.10.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The perusal of the document Ex.C1 shows that the complainant had purchased the LED in question on dated 20.01.2018 and also purchased the extended warranty on the same day by paying an amount of Rs.17000/-, as is proved from the bill Ex.C2. As per copy of messages placed on record Ex.C3, there was some defect in the alleged LED and the complainant made complaint vide complaint no.4333764792 on dated 10.10.2021. Complainant again made a complaint vide call no.4334222446 dated 13.10.2021. In this regard it is observed that LED in question was under warranty period, so the same would have been repaired by the opposite parties free of cost but the opposite party demanded some cost of repair from the complainant, which is against the terms and conditions of the warranty. Moreover, as per the reply filed by the opposite parties, some parts were not available with the company, due to which the LED could not be repaired. In this regard it is observed that company has provided the extended warranty by charging an amount of Rs.17000/- from the complainant. If the company cannot provide the parts of their products, then it should not provide the extended warranty. Extended warranty means that in case of defect in the product, the company will repair/replace the product free of cost. But in the present case opposite parties failed to repair the product within warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties have not placed on record any evidence and were proceeded exparte, which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the LED in question and also to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to replace the LED in question with a new one of same price and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the LED in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.09.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
