Delhi

North

RBT/CC/230/2022

GIRDHARI BUDHRAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

07 Feb 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

Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/230/2022

In the matter of

1. Girdhari Budhram

R/o H.No.357, Kh. No.-53/7,14

Sahbad Daulatpur

Delhi                                                                     ..........Complainant

                                                                              

Vs

1. M/s Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd

B-1/35-36, Sector-17

Rohini, Delhi-85.....Opposite party No.1

                                                             

2. Sony India Co.Ltd.

A-18, Mohan Cooperative Estate

Mathura Road, Delhi-44.....Opposite party No. 2

 

ORDER

07/02/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

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 has been transferred from DCDRC-V (North-West) to this Commission. 

This complaint has been filed by Sh. Girdhari Budhram, the Complainant against Sargam Electronics, the seller as OP-1 and Sony India Co. Ltd. the manufacturer as OP-2 with the allegations of deficiency in services.

Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that on 17.07.2017, the Complainant purchased a Sony LED model no. KLV-32W622E from OP-1. An invoice bearing no. GST-SEC17-3042 for Rs. 31,990/- was issued by OP-1. The said LED had 01 year warranty from the manufacturer i.e. OP-2. The Complainant was assured about the quality and after sale service of OP-2 and at the same time the Complainant was also convinced to purchase an additional warranty of 3 years by paying Rs.5,500/-. An invoice bearing no. DG-SEC17-082 was issued by OP-1.

The Complainant has stated that the above said LED was working smoothly but in the month of September, 2018 there was some defect for which a complaint was lodged with customer care of OP-2. The Complainant was shocked when he was informed that the warranty on the LED was for one year only and the additional 3 years warranty was promised by OP-1 and not by    OP-2.

The Complainant has further stated that OP-1 agreed to the fact and assured the Complainant that they would send the technicians to the residence of the Complainant for repairing the product. On 12.09.2018, the technicians took the LED to the service centre of OP-2 with the assurance that the same would be repaired and returned in 5 to 7 days. When the Complainant inquired about the status after 7 days he was informed that it would take some more time to repair the LED, again after five days when the Complainant visited OP-1 more time was sought by OP-1. The Complainant has alleged that though his complaint was lodged on 10.09.2018 but even after a lapse of one month the LED was not repaired and returned.

Feeling aggrieved by the acts of OP-1 and OP-2, the Complainant has prayed for refund of total cost of LED Rs.31,990/- and Rs. 5,500/- for extended warranty alongwith interest; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment alongwith Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

The Complainant has annexed the invoice no. DG-SEC17-082 and GST-SEC17-3042 for Rs.5,500/- and Rs. 31,990/- respectively. A Service Report                                                                                                                     dated 01.10.2018 given by OP-1.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP-1 and OP-2. Despite service neither anyone appeared on behalf of OP-2 nor any reply was filed hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.04.2019.

Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-1 where they have taken several pleas in their defence such as: there was no cause of action against them, the complaint was false and frivolous, there was no deficiency of service in their part.

They have submitted that at the time of selling the extended warranty the Complainant was informed that the warranty was from OP-1 and not OP-2. It was also admitted that the complainant had visited the office of OP-1 on 01.10.2018 where he was handed over a letter stating that the LED would be received by OP-1 from the service centre of OP-2 on 03.10.2018.

They have further submitted that the said LED has been received by OP-1 from Sony service centre in working condition on 10.10.2018 and the same was dispatched to the Complainant via delivery note, it is the Complainant who has been avoiding to take delivery of the repaired LED on one pretext or the other. Communication through different modes such as phone calls and text messages were sent to the Complainant on 15.10.2018 and letters sent through speed post on 17.10.2018 and 26.10.2018 were received undelivered despite having the correct address of the Complainant. They have also submitted that OP-1 had offered a standby LED of same size and brand which was unacceptable to the Complainant.

OP-1 has stated that the LED is lying in fully working condition after  repairs. The repair cost of Rs.6,612/- was borne by the OP-1 and it is the Complainant who is not accepting the LED, therefore the allegations of deficiency in services cannot be levelled against them.

They have annexed the invoice dated 17.07.2017 issued for extended warranty as Annexure R-1, a written communication dated 01.10.2018 as Annexure R-2, a Delivery Note dated 10.10.2018 as Annexure R-3, screen shot of the Whatsapp messages sent on nos. 9310008096 and 9350331832 as Annexure-R-4, Delivery Note dated 15.10.2018 as Annexure R-5, postal receipt as Annexure R-6. A letter dated 16.10.2018 with returned envelope alongwith postal receipt are Annexure R-7 to Annexure R-10 and terms and conditions are as Annexure R-11 have been filed alongwith the Written Statement.

Rejoinder to the Written statement of OP-1 was filed by the complainant. The complainant has denied the contents of the written statement and has reaffirmed the allegations made in the complaint. 

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the parties. The complainant has got himself examined and has reiterated the contents of the complaint. He has relied upon the copy of the jobsheet and has got the same exhibited as Ex.CW1/A, the copy of the receipt for extended warranty is Ex.CW1/B and the copy of the invoice of the LED and the copy of the letter issued by OP are Ex.CW1/C and Ex.CW1/D respectively.

Ms.Versha Raikawar, authorised representative on behalf of M/s Sargam (I) Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was examined on behalf of OP-1.  It has been deposed that at the time of selling of the extended warranty the complainant was informed that it was not Sony Extended Warranty and even terms and conditions did not mention that the warranty was by Sony India Co.Ltd.  They have also repeated the contents of their written statement and have relied upon Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-11 annexed with their written statement.  

We have perused the material placed on record as no one has appeared on behalf of the parties to argue. Notice of appearance was issued to the complainant as well as OP-1, which was received back with report “Address not found” and “No such person” respectively.  Since, pleadings are complete, this matter was Reserved for orders. 

The complainant has also alleged that there was delay on part of OPs to repair and return the LED.  It is an admitted fact that the extended Warranty was issued by OP-1 and not by OP-2, hence OP-2 had no role to play in repairing the product.  Since, the extended warranty was issued by OP-1 only, no deficiency in services can be attributed to OP-2.   

As far as allegations against OP-1 are concerned it has been stated by  OP-1 that it is the complainant who has refused to accept the delivery, in support they have relied on the delivery note dated 10/10/2018 (Annexure R-3) which bears endorsement “customer not accept LED” and another letter dated 15/10/2018 (Annexure R-5) which bears “Note-Cst Refused to Receive, Cst Not at home & family is also not available”.  Further, OP-1 has also filed a screen shot of the message sent on 15^th October requesting the complainant to take delivery of the LED (Annexure R-4).

It is also seen that the date of institution of the present complaint is 12/10/2018, which is just two days after 10/10/2018, when the OP-1 tried to deliver the repaired product.  If we look at the Ex.CW1/D the date of registration of complaint with OP-1 is 10/09/2018  and as per clause 5(d) of the terms and conditions of Extended warranty (Annexure R-11) which reads :

“DG Care is dedicated to repair the product at the shortest possible time.  Maximum period of 30 days.”

As per Annexure R-3, which is delivery note dated 10/10/2018 the LED was repaired within the time prescribed in the above-mentioned clause. This implies that the LED TV was repaired within 30 days from the date of complaint, which is as per terms and conditions of extended warranty.  Even in the Rejoinder there is no specific denial to the submission of OP-1.  Therefore, from the above discussion OP-1 has successfully discharged the onus that there was no deficiency in services on their part.  It is the complainant who has not taken delivery of the repaired LED TV.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.  Further, the complainant is directed to take the delivery of the LED TV within 04 weeks from the date of order.

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)                               (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

Member                                                      President