DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.546 of 5-11-2012

Decided on 20-03-2013

Ex.SWR Sohan Lal Garg aged about 69 years S/o Lachhman Dass R/o # 16491-A, St. No.5/2A, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Union of India, Ministry of Defence, through Secretary to Govt. New Delhi.

2.Canteen Stores Department Area Depot, Bathinda Military Station, Bathinda, through its Area Manger.

3.Davy Electronics, Dhobi Bazar, Bathinda, through its authorized signatory.

4.Adev Electronics Shop No.20, Krishna Market, Bibiwala road, Bathinda, through its authorized signatory.

5.Samsung Customer Service, II Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Court Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Ms.Shilpa Gupta, counsel for complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.M.R Gupta, counsel for opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

Sh.Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for opposite party Nos.4 and 5.

Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that being an ex-serviceman and retired from the Indian Army the complainant wanted to purchase one TV set, he approached the opposite party No.2 and inquired about the same, he came to know that the opposite party No.3 is an authorized dealer for selling the TV. The opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that the Samsung Plasma TV 43' 43E 470 is a good quality TV. On the assurance of the opposite party No.3 the complainant has purchased the said TV through CSD on dated 22.2.2012. On 11.10.2012 the abovesaid TV started creating problem i.e. lining on the screen. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.5 on toll free No.180030008282 and told about the same and made request to sought out the problem as the said TV was within the guarantee period of one year. The complainant registered the complaint No.8439675318 on dated 11.10.2012. The opposite party No.5 told the complainant that the engineer of the said company would come next day i.e. on 12.10.2012 and they would solve the problem and the engineers told him that there was a manufacturing defect in the panel part and in the sound and they again kept him waiting by saying that the panel needs to be changed and they do not have the part so they would solve the problem within 3 days i.e. on dated 15.10.2012 and asked the complainant to come on 18.10.2012 to collect his TV but he kept on waiting on asking of the opposite party No.4 that the panel part would come on 21.10.2012. The complainant again contacted the opposite parties on telephone. The complainant was again given the date of 15.11.2012 but to no avail. Thereafter the complainant again approached the opposite party No.4 many times for inquiring about changing of the panel of the said TV but they repeatedly told him that the abovesaid panel was not sent by the company whenever the company will send the same that will be changed but the opposite parties linger on the matter on one or the other pretext and nothing have been done till date. Ultimately the complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the said TV or to refund its price but they refused to accede to his request. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties either to replace the abovesaid TV set with new one with new guarantee or to give any additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has shown his requirement regarding the purchase of Samsung Plasma TV and purchased the same being Ex.-soldier through the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 from the authorized dealer i.e. the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 issued an indent-cum-invoice dated 22.2.2012. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as only the manufacturer company is liable for repairs or replacement of the said TV if there is any defect. No cause of action arose against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

3. The opposite party No.3 despite service of summons has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.3.

4. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts and necessary information that the obligation of the opposite party No.5 under warranty is to set right the Plasma TV by repairing or replacing the defective parts. The said Plasma TV is working properly and there is no defect. The lining on the screen is a minor problem and the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 have offered to replace the panel without any charges but the complainant was adamant for replacement of the said TV with a new one. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 are still ready to render service with regard to the said TV. The complainant is not entitled for replacement of the said TV. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. the authenticated report of expert and qualified person of the central Approved Laboratories in support of his allegations as required under the law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. The defect if any in the screen of the said TV is occurred i.e. due to the negligence of the complainant, but the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 as a goodwill gesture is ready to remove the alleged problem in the said TV. The opposite party No.5 or its service centre have never denied to provide after sales services and are still ready to provide service free of cost to the complainant. The complainant has also filed the present complaint with malafide intention to extract money from the opposite party No.5 by dragging in unwanted litigation. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 admitted that Samsung Plasma TV 43' 43E470 is a good quality TV but denied that the opposite party No.3 has given assurance to the complainant to purchase the said TV through CSD on 22.2.2012 and also denied that the defect occurred within a short period on 11.10.2012 from the purchase of the said TV i.e. lining on the screen as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 admitted that the complainant contacted the opposite party No.5 on toll free number and lodged the complaint and the service engineer of the opposite party No.4 visited him within the reasonable time and advised him that the problem can be duly rectified by replacing the panel of the said TV, but the complainant refused to get the panel changed and insisted on replacement of the said TV with a new one. There was no problem regarding the manufacturing defect in the panel part and in the sound. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 denied that the engineer kept the complainant waiting by saying that they do not have the part and they would solve the problem within 3 days i.e. on dated 15.10.2012 and or they asked him come till 18.10.2012.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. On 22.2.2012, the complainant through CSD has purchased the Samsung Plasma TV 43' 43E 470 from the opposite party No.3 as told by the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No.3 is the authorized dealer of Samsung Company. On 11.10.2012 the abovesaid TV started creating problem i.e. lining on the screen. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.5 on toll free No.180030008282 and told about the defect. The opposite party No.5 told the complainant that the engineer of the said company would come next day i.e. on 12.10.2012 and would solve the problem. The complainant was conveyed by the opposite party No.4 that there was a manufacturing defect in the panel part and in sound and the panel needs to be changed and that will be changed within 3 days i.e. on dated 15.10.2012 but they delayed the matter till 21.10.2012 and again postponed the matter till 15.11.2012 on the pretext that they have not received the panel from the manufacturer. The opposite party No.4 repeatedly conveyed the complainant that the abovesaid panel was not sent by the company whenever the same will be received from the company that will be changed. The complainant almost daily use to call the opposite party No.4 on phone as well as inquired about the status of his complaint which was registered on website of the opposite parties but the same is showing pending and now they are lingering the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant also requested the opposite parties to change the said TV with new one but nothing has been done.

7. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the complainant has purchased the said TV vide indent-cum-invoice on dated 22.2.2012 on the recommendation of the opposite party No.3.

8. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the complaint has been lodged by the complainant on toll free number but there is no manufacturing defect in the said TV. The defect if any reported in the said TV is due to the negligence of the complainant, but the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 as a goodwill gesture are ready to remove the alleged problem in the said TV. Moreover the complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the said TV. The complainant contacted the opposite party No.5 on toll free number and lodged the complaint and the service engineer of the opposite party No.4 visited him within the reasonable time and advised him that the problem can be duly rectified by replacing the panel of the said TV, but the complainant refused to get the panel changed and insisted on replacement of the said TV with a new one. It was never assured by the engineer that the problem will be resolved within 3 days i.e. upto 15.10.2012 or he would come till 18.10.2012.

9. As admitted by the parties the defects in the said TV is with regard to the lining on the screen and sound problem. The panel is required to be changed and the opposite parties kept on waiting the complainant on the pretext that the said TV is within the warranty period so the panel will be changed but the panel has not been changed till filing of this complaint on the pretext that it has not been received from the manufacture.

10. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 pleaded that there is lining on the said TV screen which is due to the negligence of the complainant but they have failed to prove the negligence on his part that how he has caused lining on the screen of the said TV moreover they themselves admitted the defect regarding the panel and it needs replacement. Furthermore the opposite parties reported the problem on 11.10.2012 i.e. well within the warranty period of one year. During the warranty period the manufacturer is liable to remove the defect without charging any amount from the complainant. If the defects are not irreparable, the same needs to be replaced and if the replacement of the parts does not solve the problem, the entire product is to be changed. In the present case the complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is any inherit defect as he has used the said TV for about 8 months and the problem regarding the lining on the screen has occurred thereafter.

11. As discussed above we conclude that there is no manufacturing defect, the defect is minor in nature that has been caused after the usage of 8 months. However this defect has occurred within the warranty period thus the opposite parties are liable to remove the same free of cost.

12. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost against the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 and dismissed qua the opposite party Nos.1 to 3. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 are directed to replace the panel of the said TV with new one within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and also to remove the defect if any occurred during the replacement of the panel to the full satisfaction of the complainant and at the same time the complainant will sign satisfaction note. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-03-2013

Vikramjit Kaur Soni

President

Amarjeet Paul

Member

Sukhwinder Kaur

Member