Punjab

Sangrur

CC/142/2023

Amandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aggarwal Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ravjot Singh

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 142

 Instituted on:   08.05.2023

                                                                        Decided on:     11.12.2024

Amandeep Singh aged about 29 years son of Kulwinder Singh R/O Tibba Basti, Kauhrian, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     M/s. Aggarwal Electronics, Jakhal Road, Near Sewa Kendar, Patran through its authorized signatory.

2.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its authorized signatory.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             : Shri Ravjot Singh, Adv.              

For OP No.1                        : Exparte.

For OP No.2                        : Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill                           :President

Sarita Garg                                                :Member

Kanwaljeet Singh                                      :Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by purchasing a LED TV from OP number 1 vide invoice number 493 dated 14.02.2023, which was subsequently changed by OP number 1 for a new and different model of Samsung LED on 25.02.2023 after charging an amount of Rs.2700/- more from the complainant. Further case of complainant is that at the time of its purchase, the complainant was assured by OP number 1 that he will be responsible for installing the LED TV in the house of the complainant, but later on he refused to do so, as such the complainant himself got installed the LED TV.  Further case of complainant is that at the time of sale of the LED TV the OP number 1 told that the LED TV is of the latest model but later on he found that the complainant was supplied the LED of 2021 model.  Further grievance of the complainant is that the voice assistant of the LED is not working and remote of the LED was also not in the working condition and could not pair with the LED TV, which is said to be manufacturing defect.  When nothing was done by OP number 1 then he complained the matter to the Samsung Customer care and after that the complainant came to know that the model of the LED TV sold by OP number 1 to the complainant was different one and did not match the accessories given by him due to which the remote control was not working. It is further averred that the LED supplied by OP number 1 to the complainant is refurnished, which is said to be unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1. The OP Number 2 also told the complainant that OP number 1 is not the authorized dealer of the Samsung Group and the OP number 2 stated that the company is not responsible for the product as same is re-assembled one. Further case of complainant is that though he approached OP number 1 so many times for refund of the amount, but nothing was done. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to refund its price i.e. Rs.33,700/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and further an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite parties number 1  did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded against exparte on 11.07.2023.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint, that the LED TV manufactured by OP carries warranty of one year only from the date of purchase subject to warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in the warranty card supplied with the product at the time of sale and the warranty is void if the product is not purchased from an authorized Samsung sale dealer and the Led TV was purchased from OP number 1, who is not an authorized dealer of Samsung. It is further stated that the LED TV in question is an online model but the same has been sold to the complainant by OP number 1 by showing it to be an offline model. It is stated further that there is no inherent defect in the LED TV and the LED TV is working properly and it has not any defect, as far as non-working of the remote is concerned the OP number 1 has given the remote of different model of LED TV and the same is not compatible and voice assistant feature is not there in this model of the LED TV. On merits, it has been denied that the complainant purchased the said LED TV from OP number 1 vide invoice number 493 dated 14.2.2023 and its replacement by OP number 1 has also been denied.  It is stated further that the remote given by OP number 1 is of different model of LED and is not compatible with the LED sold to the complainant by OP  number 1. It is stated further that since there is no manufacturing defect in the LED TV the OP number 2 is not at all responsible for the refund/replacement of the LED TV and prayed that the complaint qua OP number 2 be dismissed.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1  affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of invoice, Ex.C-3 copy of payment through Gpay dated 25.2.2023, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copy of screen shot, Ex.C-6 copy of online complaint, Ex.C-7 copy of aadhar card and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of warranty card, Ex.OP2/2 affidavit of Shri Sandeep Sahijwani, General Manager Customer Satisfaction and closed evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 1 by purchasing a Samsung LED TV for Rs.33,700/- (Rs.31000/- Plus Rs.2700/- paid by Gpay) from OP number 1 as is evident from the copy of the tax invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of screen shot of Google payment Ex.C-3, which was having one year warranty.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that from the very beginning the LED TV in question was not working properly as its remote was not working/compatible with the LED TV.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the voice assistant of the LED TV was not working and remote of the LED was also not in the working condition and could not pair with the LED TV, which is said to be manufacturing defect.  When nothing was done by OP number 1 then the complainant complained the matter to the Samsung Customer care and after that the complainant came to know that the model of the LED TV sold by OP number 1  to the complainant was different one and did not match the accessories given by him due to which the remote control was not working.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of Text messages wherein the service request number has been mentioned as 4365816851 dated 27 February.  Ex.C-5 is the copy of another TEXT messages wherein engineer Jugraj has been assigned for service.  Ex.C-6 is the copy of online complaint wherein it has been mentioned that customer/complainant reported that remote is not able to connect with TV and Google Alexa is not working.  Since it is on the record that the remote of the LED TV is not compatible with the LED TV in question as reported by the complainant as well as the engineer of the OP number 2 (Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.), as such, we find that the LED TV supplied by the OP number 1 to the complainant is not perfect in condition and without remote the LED TV has no worth to use.  Accordingly, we find it to be a clear cut case of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1.  It  is worth mentioning here that  OP Number 1 chose to remain exparte in the present proceedings and whole of the evidence is unrebutted. Moreover, the evidence produced by the OP number 2 also supports the version of the complainant that the remote of the LED TV is not working.  

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.33,700/- being the cost of defective LED TV alongwith interest @ 7% per annum  from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.05.2023 till realization. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall return the old defective LED TV alongwith remote at the time of getting the refund of the amount.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        December 11, 2024.