Haryana

Kurukshetra

199/2018

Sajan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tanuj Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sourabh Sharma

23 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.199 of 2018.

Date of Instt.:28.08.2018.

Date of Decision:23.01.2020.

 

Sajan Kumar s/o Shri Shiv Parshad, r/o H.No.408/3, Khattapur Mohalla, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             

                                                                Versus

 

1. Tanuj Electronics, Opp. Pearl Marc, Railway  Road, Kurukshetra.
2. Regional Manager, Samsung India Electronics Ltd., 6^th Floor, DLR Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. Manger, New Indian Refrigeration, Behind Grace Place, Red Road, Kurukshetra (authorized service centre).

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.      

Shri Vikramjit Singh Gill, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.

Shri  Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the opposite parties           No.2&3.

 

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Sajan Kumar against Tanuj Electronics and another, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Samsung Plasma LED from the OP No.1 for consideration of Rs.35,000/- on 11.5.2018. That the OPs had delivered an abysmal Samsung Plasma LED by representing it fit for sale. The condition of LED is abject. From the very beginning, the said LED not working properly and now it stop working properly. The said LED had poor quality of picture and sound and its turn off itself after 15/20 minutes. That the OPs took responsibility to remove all the defects in the LED within warranty period, but all in vain. By selling defective LED, the OPs are deficient in providing the services to the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the OP No.1 is only the authorized dealer who has duty to rectify any defect in the product. The rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint against the OP No.1.

                Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed the written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. It is stated that the intent of the OP company is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeacable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. In case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to notice of the OP, as a policy matter, the same is immediately corrected. The company provides one year warranty on the unit from the date of purchase and also warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy. The answering OP is still ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of warranty, so there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint against the OP No.2.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith document Ex.C-1. On the other hand, the OP No.1 did not lead any evidence. The OPs No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Ex.R-1 in his evidence.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a Samsung Plasma LED from the OP No.1 for consideration of Rs.35,000/- on 11.5.2018. He further argued that from the very beginning, the said LED not working properly and now it stop working properly. The said LED had poor quality of picture and sound and its turn off itself after 15/20 minutes. He further argued that the OPs took responsibility to remove all the defects in the LED within warranty period, but all in vain. He further argued that he brought the defective LED to the OP No.1 to set it right, but the OP No.1 failed to do so and the same is still lying with the OP No.1.

7.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the intent of the OP company is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeacable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. He further argued that in case any after sale service/quality issue is brought to notice of the OP, as a policy matter, the same is immediately corrected. He further argued that the company provides one year warranty on the unit from the date of purchase and also warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the OPs is still ready to provide services to the complainant as per conditions of warranty, so there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant purchased the LED in question from the OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- vide Tax Invoice dated 11.5.2018 Ex.C-1. From perusal of Invoice Ex.C-1, it is evident that the complainant purchased the LED in question on 11.5.2018 and filed the present complaint against the OPs regarding the defect of said LED on 28.8.2018 i.e. just only after about 3½ months from the date of purchase of said LED. Meaning thereby, the LED in question became defective from the very beginning within warranty period, due to which, complainant could not take benefit of LED in question. Since the OPs failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant either by repairing the LED or to replace the same, even after a period of 3½ months, therefore, the complainant left with no other option except to knock the door of this Forum by filing the present complaint. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the LED in question of the complainant became defective from the very beginning within warranty period and the OPs have failed to resolve the grievances of the complainant in this regard. Hence, the OPs are deficient while rendering services to the complainant. However, it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 admitted that the defective LED in question is lying in their possession.    

9.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs and direct them to replace the defective LED in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. However, it is made clear that if the OPs are not in position to replace the said LED, then refund its amount to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.       

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:23.1.2020.                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.