BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Varun Jain, r/o Jain Cottage ITI Dharampur, Distt-Solan

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Electroage Consumer Electronics Goods, SCO 363, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2.  The Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 7^th and 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ashish Sareen, Adv. for complainant.

                OP-1 exparte.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP-2

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,   MEMBER              Succinctly put, the complainant had purchased a C.TV make Samsung, Model No.29”CS29A730ELTXXL from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.17,300/- on 30.04.2008. After one month the operational features of the said TV Jammed. He made many oral and well as written requests to OP-1 for its rectification but all in vain. On 16.07.2008 he lodged a telephonic complainant at customer care centre of OP-2 and after several requests and reminders, OP-2 sent an engineer, who gave an assurance that the TV would be made functional after replacing the main circuit board. Thereafter neither the said engineer nor any other engineer visited his premises for rectification of the defect in the TV. He sent two legal notices to the OPs but was of no use at all.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. None appeared on behalf of the OP-1, which shows that OP-1 has nothing to say in his defence against the allegations levelled by the complainant. Accordingly the OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte. 

3.             In the written reply the Learned Counsel for the OP-2 admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that they are ready and willing to inspect the defect of the TV. They had asked the permission from this Forum to inspect the TV to ascertain as to whether there is any defect in the said TV. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP submitted that there has been no manufacturing defect in the said TV. 

4.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and OP-2 and have also perused the record. 

6.             Annexure C-1 shows that the C.TV was purchased by the complainant from OP-1 vide retail invoice no. 035489 dated 30.04.08, which carried a warranty of one year i.e. for the period from 30.04.2008 to 29.04.2009. The contention of the complainant is that the C.TV is giving troubles, it is not working properly and numerous complaints have been made to the OPs to repair the same and make it in working condition but the OPs have miserably failed to do so. OP-2 in para no. 3 to 5 of his reply has admitted that the complaints were lodged by the complainant and the same were attended to forthwith. Since the C.TV was within the warranty period, it was the duty of the OPs to attend the complaint properly and repair the C.TV, which they have failed to do, causing harassment to the complainant. 

7.             Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, in our considered opinion the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and it must succeed.  We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OPs 1 & 2 and pass the following directions:-

a.      The OPs 1 & 2 shall get the C.TV repaired and deliver it to the complainant free-of-cost, after making it fully functional upto the entire satisfaction of the complainant with fresh warranty of one year, within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.

b.      The OPs 1 & 2 shall further pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony  and pain to him.

c.       The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

                The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 11.11.2009 till its realization besides paying the litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. It is also made clear to the OP-1 and OP-2 that in case the C.TV in question is found to be non repairable the same would be replaced with a new one of the same configuration and model with one year`s fresh warranty and supply it to the complainant within the above stipulated period of 30 days.

                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.