Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/144

Rahul kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sargam india electronics pvt. ltd - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONS                 UMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

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

CASE NO. 144/16

Rahul Kumar  S/o Nageshwar Prasad  R/o Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar  Delhi-110059                                                                              Mob:- 9911771136                                                      …….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.  A-27, Main Najafgarh Road,    Uttam Nagar,  New Delhi-110059                                                  H. 25377635                                         

       

2. Samsung India  Electronics Pvt. Ltd.2^nd ,3^rd 4^th Floor  Tower C,  Vipul  Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon-122002.                            …..Opposite  Parties.

 

 

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 facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased  a Samsung  LED  on 06.11.2015  Model UA-55JU6470 for sum of Rs. 1,69,900/- of Samsung in the following Scheme:-

1. Mobile phone  Samsung of Rs 11,700/-.
2. Airtel  4KUHD DTH Connection (Smart Card) valued  of Rs.  6,500/-
3. Home  Theater with Rs. 5,000/- off.            

 Further  the complainant on delivery of LED was only  given  mobile phone  and was told that home theater  was out of stock.  Even  Airtel connection was  also  given one week after  the installation  as per scheme  he was to be given  4KUHD connection valuing  Rs. 6,500/- but he was  given HD connection  of Rs. 2,595/- .  The complainant in this connection approached the OPs on 10.12.2015 and  15.12.2015 and also  dealer accepted his mistake  of not giving 4KUHD connection. On 03.01.2016 the Manager Mr. Abhishek told him that he was talking with the manufacturing company  and  it  will take ten days  to do the needful.   On  15.12.2016 when he contacted OP -1  he was given  coupen of free 4KUHD connection which was not working  properly.  Because of  the aforesaid  circumstances  complainant  claimed that he was cheated  by the OPs under the g                                                                                                           arb of scheme  whereby  free item  were to be given.  He has prayed that he was refunded  the amount of LED and also   claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- . 

2.        OP-1 filed written statement admitting the purchase of LED by complainant  on 06.11.2015 and was given all the information  as to the cost /charge/warranty  terms and condition the  product.  The complainant has filed the present complaint for ulterior, false and frivolous  ground.   

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Muanoj Kumar filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P-1. OP-2 is already ex-parte.  Written submissions have also been filed by both the parties.

5.     We have heard  Counsel for parties  and perused the record.

6.     The dispute involved in the present case lies  in a narrow campus.  The  complainant has  stated that under  the scheme  Airtel Smart Card was  not installed at the time of the installation of LED  purchased by him. On 11.07.2018  Sh. Manoj Kumar for OP,  in all fairness,  admitted   that smart card was inserted in the system  purchased one month after  filing  the complaint before the Forum.  The complaint was instituted  in month of Feb. 2016 thus connection was given,  according to the OP-I,  in the month of March, 2016. It  will not be out of place to mention here that complainant  had purchased  the product in November,2015   and he had to go without the facility  of smart card  connection for about four months  and  delay in giving  the connection  as promised by OP at the time  of purchase  of LED, has been fairly admitted by Sh. Manoj  Kumar.  Thus  the  grievance of complainant now  remains with regard  to harassment   and inconvenience  caused by OPs.     

 Keeping in view the circumstances  stated above  we are of the opinion  that it would  meet the ends of the justice if both the OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- towards  harassment, inconvenience and litigation expenses.

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

   File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this___28^th  ___ day of __August_______ 2018.

 

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

               MEMBER