DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/224/2020

Date of Institution : 01.10.2020

Date of Decision : 03.02.2022

Sinderpal Singh aged about 56 years son of Sh. Bachan Singh resident of Ramdasia Patti, VPO Khudi Kalan, District Barnala.  …Complainant

Versus

1. Surindra Radio and Watch Company, Sadar Bazaar, Barnala through its sole prop/partner. 

2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Sector 43, Gurgaon through its Managing Director/Sole Prop/Partner. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Sumant Goyal Adv counsel for complainant.

Opposite party No. 1 exparte.

Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Sinderpal Singh filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Surindra Radio and Watch Company, Barnala and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that on 5.6.2019 the opposite party had sold one 32 Inch LED of Samsung Company bearing No. 544511514513 for Rs. 12,500/- vide invoice No. 315 of even date in the name of Bajaj Finance Limited c/o Sinderpal Singh as the same was got financed from Bajaj Finance Limited by the complainant. The opposite party has given a warranty of 12 months to the complainant against any manufacturing defect. In the month of August 2019 the complainant found some manufacturing defect in the LEF i.e. said LED screen become blank due to which the complainant is unable to use the same. The complainant contacted the opposite party and upon the opposite parties instructions the complainant deposited the said LED with the opposite party for repair and after some days the said LED was again handed over to the complainant after repair. But after few days the said LED become blank and complainant again contacted the opposite party and again deposited the same with the opposite party for repair and same was again handed over to the complainant after repair. 

3. It is further alleged that after some days i.e. in the month of October 2019 the said LED again become blank and complainant again contacted the opposite party but the the opposite failed to resolve the issue. The complainant requested the opposite party for its replacement as the said LED is within guarantee/warranty period upon which the opposite party started to linger on the matter and later on flatly refused to replace the said LED and also failed to remove the said manufacturing defect. Thereafter, the complainant contacted one mechanic who checked the said LED and disclosed to the complainant that the said LED is not original Samsung Company and is duplicate as it does not match the batch number mentioned in the bill. The complainant again contacted the opposite party but he flatly refused to replace the said LED and failed to justify the queries of the complainant regarding the genuineness of the LED. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and mal practice. The complainant served a legal notice dated 14.5.2020 on the opposite party but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to exchange the said LED with a new one or return the amounts of said LED i.e. Rs. 12,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest. 

2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 6,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. The opposite party No. 1 did not appear before this Commission despite service, so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.10.2020. 

5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 filed written reply taking legal objections that the LED TV of complainant perfectly working as complainant has never lodged any complaint with the customer care of answering opposite party and it has never been submitted with the authorized service centre with any kind of problem till date. The complainant has concealed true facts from this Commission. There is no inherent defect in the LED TV. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party. The complainant neither alleged any manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor file any documentary evidence. 

6. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 2. However, the complainant failed to mention to whom the LED was handed over for repair and on which date and whether any receipt or job sheet issued to him for repair. The complainant never approached answering opposite party or its authorized service centre till date. Rest of contents of the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 2 and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the answering opposite party with costs. 

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipt Ex.C-4, photographs Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2  tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajeev Gupta Ex.OP-2/1, copy of warranty card Ex.OP-2/2, affidavit of Ramneet Batta Ex.OP-2/3, inspection report Ex.OP-2/4, customer service record Ex.OP-2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the appearing parties. 

10. On the perusal of the record of the present complaint, it is proved on the file that the complainant purchased the LED in question from the opposite party No. 1 vide bill dated 5.6.2019 Ex.C-2 for Rs. 12,500/-. Further, in the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 he deposed that the said LED got defective many times within the warranty period and repaired by the opposite party No. 1 some times and in the month of January 2020 i.e. within the warranty period refused to replace or repair the said LED. Further, in his affidavit he deposed that when he got checked the said LED from some mechanic who disclosed the said LED is duplicate. 

11. On the other hand the opposite party No. 2 filed affidavit of Ramneet Batta Proprietor of Sai Electronics, Barnala authorized service centre of Samsung India Private Limited, Barnala Ex.OP-2/3 who deposed that he visited the premises of the complainant and checked the LED in question and said LED is not a genuine product of Samsung company so he did not open or resolve the problem of the same. The same fact is also mentioned in the inspection report Ex.OP-2/4. Both these documents clearly proved on the file that the opposite party No. 1 sold duplicate LED to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 has  have not dared to appear and filed any written version before this Commission to rebut these allegations of the complainant and intentionally preferred to remain exparte, which proved that they have nothing to say against the allegations of the complainant and indirectly admitted the claim of the complainant whereas the case of the  complainant proved on the file beyond any doubt by way of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on the file. So, in view of the evidence on the file it is clearly proved on the file that the opposite party No. 1 is indulging in unfair trade practice by selling duplicate LED to the complainant . 

12. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till actual realization. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 3,300/- as costs and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        3rd Day of February 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member