DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PATIALA
Consumer Complaint No.120 Dt.12/04/2017 Decided on: 01/09/2020
Jaipal Singh son of Sardara Singh, resident of village Kheri Gillan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
…...Complainant
Versus
1. Sharma Electronics, Mehas Gate, Near Chhaju Ram Dharamshala, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala through its Proprietor/ Owner.
2. Samsung Authorized Service Centre, Near Hotel Flyover, Dukh Niwaran Sahib Road, Patiala 147001 through its Proprietor.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, two Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122202 through its Managing Director.
….Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Pulkit Bansal Adv. counsel for complainant. OPs No.1 & 2 ex-parte. Sh. J. S. Sandhu Adv. counsel for OP No.3.
ORDER
JASJIT SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT
1. Jaipal Singh complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties namely Sharma Electronics and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Brief facts of the case is that On 07/10/2015 complainant purchased one Samsung LED Model No.VA32FH4003ARLXL from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.24,400/- vide bill No.2211. The said LED stopped working in the month of June 2016 and complainant immediately approached to OP No.1 and lodged the complaint, OP No.1 after registering the complaint of the complainant, contacted with OPs No.2 & 3. On thorough checkup and inspection by the Engineer of the company, they told that the LED in question is fully covered under guarantee/ warrantee and the panel of the LED has been stopped working due to its manufacturing defect and assured the complainant the defective panel will be replaced with new one within very short span of time under guarantee/ warrantee conditions of the Samsung Company but till today none has come again to repair the defect of the LED.
It is further stated by the complainant that he visited number of times at the shop of OP No.1 and made complaints with Op No.3 vide complaint No.4220080488 dt.22/08/2016 and 4220500081 dt.29/08/2016 but no action was taken.
The complainant got served a legal notice dt.8/9/2016 upon the OPs and requested to refund the amount of Rs.24,400/- but no action was taken. Complainant again got served a legal notice dt.02/01/2017 upon OPs No.1 & 3 but to no effect. The aforesaid acts on the part of the OPs of not replacing the LED and causing mental tension and agony to the complainant. The OPs played fraud upon the complainant by using unlawful trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.
With this background of facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer to accept the complainant and with a direction to the OPs to replace the LED with new one or in alternative to refund the price of product i.e. Rs.24,400/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 07/10/2015 the date of purchase till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, tension harassment, inconvenience and humiliation suffered by the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3 despite service. Thus OPs No.1 to 3 are proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In support of the complaint, Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 copy of bill dt.7/10/2015, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 original Postal Receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of warranty information and ld. counsel closed the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for OP No.3 Sh. J. S. Sandhu Adv. moved an application dt.27/03/2018 for joining the proceedings which was allowed vide zimni order 20/07/2018.
6. We have gone through the written arguments filed by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and by the counsel for OP No.3 and have heard both the ld. counsel and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant had argued that the complainant purchased the Samsung LED for a sum of Rs.24,400/- vide bill No.2211 dt.07/10/2015 from OP No.1. Ld. Counsel further argued that the LED in question stopped working in the month of June 2016. Despite requests OPs had not rectified/ replaced the defective LED. Ld. Counsel further argued that warranty card is Ex.C-5. Ld. Counsel prayed that complaint of the complainant be allowed.
8. On the other hand ld. Counsel for OP No.3 has argued that it is the responsibility of OP No.1 who has sold the said LED TV to the complainant.
9. As per Ex.C-1 the complainant purchased one Samsung LED for a sum of Rs.24,400/- vide bill No.2211 dt.07/10/2015 and warranty card Ex.C-5 is also on the file in which warranty period is mentioned as 12 months. Before filing this complainant a legal notice was sent to the OPs by the complainant through counsel. From the documents, it is clear that complainant had purchased one Samsung LED for a sum of Rs.24,400/- from OP No.1, which has stopped working and despite repeated requests OPs failed to rectify the defect.
10. In view of the above it is clear that the complainant purchased Samsung LED for a sum of Rs.24,400/- on 07/10/2015 from OP No.1 which stopped working in June 2016 which is within the warranty period. Hence we allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP No.1 to change the LED TV set of the complainant with new one and also to pay Rs.2000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED*
Dated: 01/09/2020.
Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President
