BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 48 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.3.2015
Date of Decision : 22.8.2016
Vikramjit Singh aged 42 years son of Sh.Labh Singh, r/o Mandi Dabwali, tehsil Dabwali, distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Service Centre, Samsung India Electronics Ltd., F-Block, Sirsa, distt.Sirsa.
- Samsung India Electronics Ltd., Regd. Office: IFCI Tower, 7th & 8th Floors, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019, through its authorized person/signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
- Kanav Monga (Vishal TV), Fatehabad.
……Proforma-respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant is that he had purchased a LED of Samsung company from Op no.3 for Rs.1,10,000/-. After a period of one week of its installation and use, the said LED developed defects and stopped working. On complaint, Op no.1 get it repaired. Thereafter, Op no.1 conducted its repairs for 5 to 6 times stating that one part of LED is to be replaced and the said LED is lying with op no.1 in defected condition since last 3-4 months from the date of filing of the complaint. Complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the LED and sought its replacement. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and written statement on behalf of Ops no.1&2 filed. Ops no.1&2 took the preliminary objection that the LED was purchased on 18.1.2005 and as per the complainant it is not working properly after one week of its installation i.e. since 2005 whereas the present complaint has been filed in March, 2015 after almost 10 years from the date of purchase and as such, complaint is hopelessly time barred. Ops denied the remaining allegations of the complaint.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy f bill Ex.C2. Whereas Ops filed affidavit Ex.R1.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. Before going to merit of the case, it will be proper to firstly discuss on the point of limitation. From Ex.C2 copy of bill, it is clear that LED was purchased vide bill no.255 dt. 18.1.2005. As per the allegations of complaint, LED developed defects after one week of its installation whereas the present complaint has been filed on 10.3.2015 i.e. almost after 10 years. Complainant nowhere pleaded regarding any guarantee or warranty for such a long period of 10 years. In our view, the present complaint is time barred because under the provisions of Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, any complaint can be filed within a period of two years from the date when cause of action has arisen. Now, coming to merit of the case, complainant alleged regarding manufacturing defect in the LED whereas no expert report in this regard has been placed on record. In our view, in the absence of any expert report, no manufacturing defect can be established.
6. As a result of our discussion, we are of the view that present complaint deserves dismissed. We order accordingly. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 22.8.2016 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
