Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/259/2022

PRADEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARGUM INDIA ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.259/22

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Pradeep Kumar, C 3/247, Sultan Puri, Thane Wala Road, New Delhi 110086	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Sargam India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director, Shop No. 3 & 4, Shopping Centre-1, Sector-1, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi 110085   Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director, 12th Floor, Ambience Tower, Ambience Island NH 8, Gurugram, Haryana, India 122002	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

12.10.2018 09.08.2023 26.10.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 10.03.2017, Complainant had purchased a LED TV for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- from the Opposite Party No. 1.  It is his case that Opposite Party No. 1 had given the two years Ultra protection warranty on the said LED TV. After one year, the said LED TV was not working properly and some manufacturing default came in the picture of the said LED TV.It is his case that on 23.08.2018, Complainant lodged a complaint regarding the said default. After that the service engineer of the Opposite Party No. 2 visited the house of the Complainant and informed that the warranty of the said LED TV had expired and provided a job sheet. It is his case that he made a call to the Opposite Party No. 1 and they replied that he should come to the shop and his problem would be solved. On the next day, Complainant visited the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1 and they said that the said LED TV is out of the warranty. It is his case that Opposite Party No. 1 further informed that they would send the TV mechanic and the Complainant would had to pay the service charges and the cost of the spare parts. After that the Complainant reminded the Opposite Party No. 1 that they gave the warranty for this product for two years with the stamp and signatures but they said that there was no such warranty on the said product. It is his case that till date the said LED TV was not repaired by the Opposite Parties. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to replace the said LED TV with new one, to refund the price of the LED TV along with interest @ 18 % p.a.. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 40,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased the LED TV from it. It is stated that the warranty is provided by the manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No. 2. It is stated that Opposite Party No. 1 did not give any ultra protection warranty as alleged by the Complainant. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied by Opposite Party No. 1 and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte. Its application to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2019. The Opposite Party No. 2 has filed written statement beyond the stipulated period and the same was not taken on record.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Smt. Varsha Raikwar, wherein, she has supported the case of Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant in person. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 to address the arguments.  We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased LED TV from Opposite Party No. 1. It is his case that Opposite Party No. 1 gave two years ultra-protection warranty on the said LED TV. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the warranty on the product is given by the manufacturer and not by the seller. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 that it did not give any two years warranty on the said LED TV. It is a well known fact that the warranty on a product such as LED TV etc. is always given by the manufacturer and not by the seller. In the present case, the Complainant has taken the stand that two years ultra protection warranty was given by Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant has referred the invoice of the LED TV whereupon it is mentioned that one plus one year ultra protection warranty. The said handwriting is not signed by any person nor does it bear the stamp of the Opposite Party No. 1. The perusal of the complaint shows that in para no. 6 of his complaint he has mentioned that two years warranty of the product was given by Opposite Party No. 1 and the same was endorsed on the retails invoice which bears the stamp and signature of Opposite Party No. 1. It has been mentioned above that the perusal of the invoice does not show any stamp and signature underneath the said alleged warranty. Moreover, it is a well known fact that the warranty is always given by the manufacturer and not by the seller. Therefore, the assertion of the Complainant that two years ultra protection warranty was given by Opposite Party No. 1 cannot be believed. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
8. Order announced on 26.10.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)