Haryana

Panchkula

CC/167/2015

VANDANA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMART SOLUTIONS. - Opp.Party(s)

PARMATAMA SARAN.

05 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	167 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	25.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	05.11.2015

                                                                                          

Mrs. Vandana w/o Sh.Parmatma Saran r/o House No.2000, Sector 15 Panchkula (Haryana) 134113.

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.Smart Solutions, Authorised Samsung Service Centre Plot No.83, Industrial Area Phase-2 Panchkula (Haryana) Phones 0172-5045551, 5045552.

2.Mrs.Sweta Sharan Senior Executive Customer Experience Samsung India Electronics Private Limited 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, Tower- C Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road Gurgaon, Sector 43 (Haryana) Toll free No.180030008282, 1800110011

                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Sh.Dharampal, President.

                             Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Parmatama Sharma, authorized representative                                              for complainant. 

Ops are ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Samsung LED Smart TV Model No.UA32D5600VRMXL on 25.10.2011 from M/s Bansal Electronics. On 11.06.2015 suddenly the red light (Power indicator)  of the LED TV turned off, therefore, the complainant registered a complaint bearing No.8475301374 on toll free No.1800110011.  Sh.Jagdish, Service Engineer of OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and after inspection told that PCB of the LED is not working and it has to be replaced. On 17.06.2015, PCB of the LED was replaced but it did not work. Thereafter service engineer of the OP No.1 again visited the house of the complainant and replaced the PCB of the LED on 22.06.2015 with new one but again it did not work. On 23.06.2015 the service engineer took the LED to the customer care centre i.e. OP No.1. On 27.06.2015 when the complainant visited the OP No.1 then it was informed to him that new PCB has been installed in the LED but it again did not work. The complainant asked the OP No.1 that there is no problem with PCB but the OP No.1 kept on stating that there is problem with PCB only.   Since the complainant was without LED/TV for about 16 days, therefore, he bought new Videocon LED by spending Rs.12990/-. On 30.06.2015, the complainant was intimated that the LED is now working properly after replacing of PCB & Supply Card and payment of Rs.12569/- is to be paid.  The OP No.1 delivered the LED to the complainant on 01.07.2015 after charging Rs.12569/- (Cost  of PCB 6183 + cost of supply card 4322 + Vat @ 13.13 % = 1380/- + service charges 684/-) vide receipt No.1443 dated 01.07.2015. The OP No.1 had charged Rs.7,000/- for PCB wrongly despite the fact that there was nothing wrong with it.  The complainant requested the  Ops for the refund of the amount but to no avail.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.
2.  Notices were issued to the Ops but they did not appear before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.10.2015.
3. We have heard authorized representative of the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
4. It is established that the LED of the complainant did not work properly and he approached the Ops. From Annexure C2 it is apparent that PCB and SMPS were changed by the Ops and had charged Rs.12569/- from the complainant including taxes. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops had charged Rs.7000/- qua the PCB despite the fact that there was no need to replace the same. The contention put-forth by the complainant is not plausible because it is not supported by any concrete/authentic/expert evidence that the OP No.1 had changed the PCB without any reason. Moreover, there is no plea of the complainant that the LED is not working properly after its repair. It seems that the complainant wants to take the cost of the repaired product back from the Ops under the garb of this compliant. Though in the present case the OPs have not appeared before this Forum and also not joined the proceedings but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs without taking the benefit of other party. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops and the complaint deserves dismissal.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we dismiss the present complaint. There is no order as to cost. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance

 

Announced

05.11.2015     S.P.ATTRI                      ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                                     DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT