Delhi

North

RBT/CC/186/2022

DHARAM VEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONIC PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

RBT/CC No/186/2022

                                                                                          DCDRC-V CC No. 429/2018

In the matter of

1. Sh.Dharam Veer

S/o Sh.Kishan Lal Singh

Gali No.09, Som Bazar

Mukundpur, Part-2

 

Versus

1. Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

C-951, Jahangir Puri

Delhi-110033                                                                  ...Opposite party

 

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

20^th to 24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road,Sector-43

DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122202                         ...Opposite party

 

3. Mr. Deepak Bansal, CEO

Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No.-01, Garg Trade Centre

Near G3S, Cinema, Sector-11

Rohini, New  Delhi-110085                                              ...Opposite party

                                           

                                                                                               ORDER
                                                                                             18/11/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

1.  The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

2.   Briefly stated, the facts as per the complaint are that OP-1 Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.( OP-1) is engaged in the business of selling consumer durable like refrigerator, TV etc.; Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.(OP-2) is the manufacturer of TV, refrigerator and mobiles etc.

3.   On 17/10/2017, the complainant purchased one Samsung LED Television Make-UA49K5300ARM Excel bearing HSN Code No.85287219 from OP-1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.71,750/- vide invoice/bill No.GST-SE2331.  The said LED TV was under three years warranty. 

4.   It has been alleged by the complainant that though the date of purchase is 17/10/2017 but the said TV was financed on 29/10/2017 by Bajaj Finance Services which creates a doubt as to the date of purchase is before the date of finance.  On 17/10/2017, the TV was installed at the residence of the complainant, it was noticed that there was a line on the television screen. The same was informed to the engineer who has come for the installation.  The complainant was informed by the service engineer that the problems of the line on the TV screen will abolished after installation of cable TV within a week. After waiting for four days the complainant informed OP-1 on 22/10/2017. 

5.   The complainant was asked by the manager of OP-1 to complaint at the call centre of OP-2.  The complainant has further alleged that he registered a complaint after two months because he was misguided by the seller (OP-1). The engineer of OP-2 visited the complainant and informed that the repairs would be chargeable of Rs.40,000/-. A letter dated 27/12/2017 was written by the complainant and several complaints were registered.  On 14/05/2018, also a complaint was made to OP-1 and Authorised service centre of OP-2, however the TV of the complainant was not repaired.

6.   Legal notice dated 21/05/2018, was served upon OPs demanding compensation of Rs.80,360/- including interest @24% p.a. on the cost of TV which was refused by OPs.

7.   Feeling aggrieved by the act/omissions on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed for the directions to OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.19,639/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- or any other relief which the commission (erstwhile forum) deemed fit in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint.

8.   The complainant has filed the coloured photograph of the LED TV, tax invoice as Annexure C-1, statement of account of loan as Annexure-C-2, complaint dated 27/12/2027 to the Manager as Annexure C-3, complaint dated 14/05/2018 to OP-1 and OP-2 as Annexure C-4, Legal notice dated 21/05/2018 as Annexure C-5, Warranty terms and conditions along with the complaint.

9.   Notice of the present complaint was served to OPs. 

10. Written statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3.  It has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the LED on 17/10/2017 from OP-1 vide invoice No.GST-SC-2331.  They have submitted that the complainant was given sealed pack and new LED in working condition, thus there was no cause of action against them.  The warranty is provided by the manufacturer that is OP-2.

11. They have submitted that the request for finance was received on 15/10/2017 and upon subsequent approval; a formal intimation was received on 25/10/2017 by email.  The complainant has concealed the fact that the finance was approved on 29/10/2017.  They have denied that there was deficiency in services on their part which caused mental harassment and financial loss to the complainant and receipt of legal notice has also been denied along with the complainant’s claim for compensation.  Rest of the complaint have been denied.

12. They have annexed the finance approval list as Annexure-C-1, an email dated 25/10/2017 intimating the finance approval as Annexure-C-2 with their written statement.

13. OP-2 also filed their written statement where they have taken several preliminary objections such as there is no deficiency in services as there is no documentary evidence has been filed. It has been submitted that OP-2 provides services to its customer through its authorised service centre and a dedicated all India toll free helpline no. (24X7) hours has been provided to the customers for any service/repair assistance.   

14. They have further submitted that as per the complaint the complainant had purchased one Samsung LED TV make-UA49K5300ARMXL on 17/10/2017 for Rs.71,750/- in good and sealed packed condition after being fully satisfied with the said product.  The said television was insured by OP-1 and the product carries a warranty for one year and if there will be any issue/problem in the said product the company shall repair the same free of cost.  However, in case of damaged product or breach of warranty terms and conditions the repairs shall be on chargeable basis.   

15. Another objection taken by OP-2 that the complainant is not a consumer as he has not attached any invoice or relevant document.  They further submitted that the complainant had approached the service centre of OP-2 on 18/012/2017 with some display problems, where he was informed that due to physical damage the warranty of the said LED has been void thus, the repairs would be on chargeable basis.  An estimate dated 22/10/2017, was issued. 

16. On 04/04/2018, the complainant again approached OP-2 with display damage for which again an estimate was issued, which was declined by the complainant.  Again on 04/05/2018, the complainant approached OP-2 with the same problems and a goodwill gesture the representative of OP-2 discounted the cost of repair by 20% i.e. Rs.30,000/-, but the complainant was adamant for replacement.  Thus, whenever the complainant had approached OP-2 for any issue the same was addressed by them and they are still willing to resolve the issue as per policy terms and conditions.  The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect, negligence on part of OP-2. Rest of the content of the complaint has been denied with the prayer of dismissal of the complaint.

17. They have annexed the warranty condition as Annexure-A, estimate details dated 22/12/2017 as Annexure-B, photographs of the handset in dispute as Annexure-C.

18. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated and those of the written statement have been denied. It has been denied that the matter is related to physical damage but it relates to internal damage.   

19. Evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant, where he has repeated the contents of the complaint. 

20. Sh. Manoj Kumar, Authorised Representative has been examined on behalf of OP-1 and Ms. Varsha Raikwar, Authorised Representative has also filed an affidavit on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3. The contents of the written statement have been repeated. They have relied upon the Annexure annexed with the written statement. 

21. OP-2 has got examined Sh.Anup Kumar Mathur, Authorised Representative.  He has also repeated the contents of their written statement and has got exhibited the copy of the warranty policy as Ex.OPW-1/1, copy of estimate dated 22/12/2017 and photographs of the damaged product as Ex.OPW-1/2 and Ex.OPW-1/3 respectively. 

22. We have perused the material placed on record and heard the submission made by the Ld.Counsel for OP-2. The notice of appearance was issued to the complainant, the same was received back.  The complainant has alleged that the product sold by OP-1 and manufactured by OP-2 was defective. In support of his allegations he has filed the photograph of the LED TV. However, the complainant has not filed any job sheet.  He has placed on record letters dated 27/12/2017 and 14/05/2018, where he has complained about the defect in the product.  The first complaint to OP-2 has been made after 70 days from the date of purchase and installation.  There is no document to substantiate that the complainant had immediately apprised OP-1 about the alleged defect in the LED TV. It is highly improbable that complainant waited for more than two months to register the complaint.  In the absence of any document, it cannot be ascertained that there was a defect in the product manufactured by OP-2 or the product sold by OP-1 was defective.  Complainant has also not placed on record any job sheet in support of his allegations. It is settled preposition of law that the complainant has to prove his own case, which is not so in the present complaint.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, the same is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)               Member	(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)             President