BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:82 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 26.04.2016.
Date of Decision:19.07.2016
Jyoti wife of Shri Pawan, resident of Baliali Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani at present resident of village Mall Siwana, Tehsil Saffidon, District Jind.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Vijay Electronics Radihika complex opposite.M. Public School Hansi Road Bhiwani through its partner/authorized signatory.
- Samsung Service centre Pillu khera (Jind).
- Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Vipul Tower Sector 43 Near Mercies show room Gurgaon (Haryana) through its authorized signatory.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Shish Ram representative for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for Ops no. 2 & 3.
None for OP no. 1.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that she had purchased one LED-Samsung, one washing machine-Samsung 727SR No. W0275PAG701547 vide invoice No. 27328 dated 30.10.2015 from OP no. 1 for her marriage. It is alleged that at the time of its purchase the OP no. 1 had assured the complainant that the said washing machine having good quality. It is alleged that in the month of February 2016, the said washing machine become defective and complainant lodged a complaint on toll free number of the OP no. 3. It is alleged that the complainant repeatedly contacted the Ops telephonically and verbally many a times and requested them either to replace the defective washing machine or refund the price but the Ops put the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that the said washing machine is in the warranty period and during the warranty said washing machine become defective and Ops are fully responsible for any defect. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the Ops no. 2 & 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the respondent company is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. It is submitted that the answering respondent as a matter of policy issues prompt after sales service in warranty period provided no outside interference/repair has been done to the Handset/TV/Refrigerator and the same was not mishandled but no such service was issued by the Ops since outside interference/repair was evident from the product thereby breaking the terms of the warranty provided. It is submitted that answering opposite party i.e. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. is a renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the representative for complainant and learned counsel for Ops no. 2 & 3.
4. The representative of the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that four items were purchased by the complainant from the OP no. 1 vide bill no. 27328 dated 31.10.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 68,000/-, which includes one washing machine. Since the purchase of the washing machine that washing machine is not working properly and it has also been taken by the complainant to the service centre of the company at OP no. 2. Despite repairs by OP no. 2 still the washing machine is not running properly. The OP no. 2 could not rectify the defect of the machine because the machine is having manufacturing defect.
5. Learned counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3 reiterated the contents of their reply. He submitted that the company provides one year warranty subject to some conditions. He submitted that the engineers of the company did not find any defect in the washing machine.
6. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. We have perused the bill dated 31.10.2015 issued by OP no. 1 for Rs. 68,000/- wherein 4 items have been mentioned but the individual price of each item has not been mentioned in the bill by the OP no. 1. It amounts to be unfair trade practice. The consumer is entitled to know the price of each and every item which has been purchased by him/her. Considering the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant against the Ops, jointly and severally and direct the Ops to replace the washing machine of the complainant. The OP no. 1, being the dealer of OP no. 3, is directed to replace the washing machine of the complainant with new one within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. If the Ops failed to comply with this order within stipulated time, they shall also be liable to pay Rs. 1500/- as cost to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 19.07.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
