Delhi

East Delhi

CC/403/2017

S.N. QURESHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAVRAG AUDIO & VIDEO - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 403/2017

 

1	DR. SHABAD ALAM QURESHI SON OF SHRI MOHD. YASEEN, R/O 9/1762 STREET NO.1, KAILASH NAGAR, DELHI-110031	….Complainant
Versus
1	M/S NAVRANG AUDIO VIDEO PVT. LTD. D-10, VIKAS MARG LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092	……OP1
2	M/S SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LTD. A-25, GROUND FLOOR, FRONT TOWER, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110044	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution: 21.09.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 12.8.2022

Judgment Passed on: 17.8.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP1 and OP2 in not repairing TV within warranty period. 
2. The brief facts as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased a Samsung LED TV on 23.10.2015 from OP1, a dealer for Samsung, for a sum of Rs.47000/-. He was assured that he would receive the best services within warranty period and was also provided warranty (Extended) for two years by OP1against consideration. After 20 months, a continuous red line started appearing on the display screen, & than he made a complaint to service centre of OP2, the manufacturer, on 13.07.2017. Subsequently, an engineer, Mr. Sohan, from OP2 visited the residence of the Complainant. After inspection, he informed that the defect cannot be rectified as the panel in the T.V cannot be repaired. The said engineer agreed to replace the panel free of cost. Thereafter, the Complainant, despite several efforts and follow-ups, received no response from the service centre of OP2.
3. The Complainant, then, informed OP1 who requested OP2 to either replace the TV or resolve the issue. However, OP2 refused to replace the panel free of cost and demanded Rs.27,011/- to change the defective panel.  It is alleged that the complainant has been deliberately given a defective LED TV on account of which he has suffered great hardship as the said LED TV stopped functioning. 
4. The Complainant prays either for replacement of the aforementioned TV with a new product having no manufacturing defect or refund the price paid with the interest at the rate of 24% p.a.  The Complainant further prays for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- for harassment and mental agony. 
5. OP1 in its reply has stated that it is a mere dealer/distributor of OP2 and is not a concerned party in the present case.  OP1 clarifies that it is clearly written on the invoice that the warranty of goods stands only with the manufacturing company.  OP1 did not give any warranty or guarantee. No complaint regarding TV has ever been received by OP1.  OP1 only sells electrical appliances and the liability for any defect in these appliances are of the manufacturer. OP1 has also denied any assurance regarding the TV and submits that at the time of installation, the product was working properly. 
6. OP2 in its reply states that it is a renowned manufacturer of various electrical household items, which pass through stringent quality tests and trials. It also has an excellent ‘after sales service’. Procedures for service and repair are standardised.  It is also alleged that Complainant has suppressed material facts.
7. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased LED TV from OP1 on 23.10.2015 in sealed pack conditions.  It is specifically submitted that the product in question carries warranty for period of one year and the said warranty covers only repair/replacement of any part for any defective workmanship or defective component.  In case of damage, all repairs will be chargeable.
8. OP2 submits that the said TV was used joyfully by the Complainant for 20 months who approached the service centre on 13.07.2018. A technician visited residence of the complainant as per warranty entitlement and found that the panel was defective. The complainant was informed that the TV will be repaired only on chargeable basis as the damage had occurred due to mis-handling.  As the Complainant refused to pay charges, the request for replacement of the panel was cancelled. An estimate of repair charges for a sum of Rs.22,991/- was prepared.  OP has enclosed an estimate letter as Annexure-‘A’.
9. It is imputed that there is no documentary evidence in support of the allegations made by the complainant and no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service can be proved.  OP2 has relied on judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in Sushila Automobiles Ltd. V. Dr. Birendra Narain & 3 (2010) CPJ 130 (NC) and similar judgements. OP2 prays that the complaint be dismissed with cost. 
10. The Complainant in his Rejoinder to reply file by OP1 has reiterated his complaint and denied the averments made by OP1.  The Complainant has reiterated that OP1 is liable to replace the product through OP2 as the product was purchased from OP1.
11.  The complainant in his rejoinder to reply filed by OP2 had reiterated his contentions. He stated that the TV is still non-functional. He has specifically denied that the product was damaged due to mishandling. 
12. The complainant exhibited the following in his evidences:

1. Copy of retail invoice dated 23.10.2015 as EX.CW1/B.
2. 2 years Warranty certificate as EX.CW1/C.
3. SMS regarding the complaint as EX.CW1/D.
4. Email dated 20.08.2017 as EX.CW1/E.

13.  OP2 exhibited the following evidences:

1. Copy of pictures of TV along with an estimate letter as EX.OPW1/A.
2. OP2 has also annexed a copy of warranty card along with its written statement.

14.  We have perused the pleadings, contentions and documents filed by both the parties. It is admitted by all parties that the complainant purchased a Samsung LED TV on 23.10.2015 from OP1 for a sum of Rs.47,000/-.   It is also admitted that Complainant approached OP2 on 13.07.2017 regarding appearance of continuous red line on its display screen.  OP2 deputed an engineer who found that the panel of the TV was defective. As per OP2, the replacement of said panel could be done only on chargeable basis due to following reasons.

1. The product had a warranty for 12 months and the problem occurred after 20 months of joyous use,
2. The product was damaged due to mishandling. 

 

15. Complainant has filed 2 year warranty certificate along with terms and conditions. They are as follows:

1. The Terms and Conditions of this extended warranty are supplement and in addition to the Terms and Conditions provided on the Standard Warranty Card supplied with the product.
2. Under this offer the extended warranty will be valid for the specific models purchased between the promotion period  from 1^st September – 5^th November 2016. 
3. 1^st year of Warranty is the Standard Manufacturer’s Warranty as detailed in the warranty card which is applicable from date of invoice.  The 2^nd year warranty which is applicable from the date of expiry of the Standard Warranty is applicable only on panel failure. 
   •  

9. During the period of the extended warranty the company’s obligation under shall be limited to repair of providing replacement of part/s only.  The maximum claim/s if entertained by the company will be subject to the maximum listed price of the panel of the product or the purchase price of the panel part of the product, whichever is lower. 

 

16.  OP2 has reiterated time and again in all its pleadings that the said TV is out of warranty. Nevertheless, it has admitted that onsite service was arranged as per the warranty entitlement. OP2 is completely silent on the extended warranty. It has not denied, much less specifically, this document in any manner.  As per the terms and conditions, the claim in the second year can be extended to the maximum listed price of the panel. Admittedly the panel was found defective in the second year of use by OP2 technician. Thus, the defect in the product is clearly within warranty and the panel should have been replaced free of cost.
17.  The second issue pertains to damage due to mishandling: Now when OP2’s engineer has admitted in its reply that defect occurred because of some mishandling for which the Complainant himself is responsible, the initial onus on the complainant to show the LED TV set had stopped functioning stands discharged and the burden to prove shifts onto OP2 to prove that the defect occurred because of some mishandling for which the complaint himself would to be blamed. OP2 has not adduced any evidence in support of its plea that the service engineer reported mishandling after inspection. OP2 neither submitted the report of the service engineer nor filed his affidavit. During warranty period, job card is required to the maintained. This, too, was not produced. An undated letter by one M/s.  Kaiser electronics annexed by OP2 gives an estimate for panel replacement and repair without mentioning any damage & it is not explained as to who the M/s Kaiser electronics is.
18. OP2 has relied on judgement passed by Hon’ble National Commission stating that the evidence is not supported by the opinion/report of a technical expert.  In the present case, the damage to the product is not in dispute and it was OP2 who have failed to submit the reports made by its own service technician. 
19. OP2 has also relied on another judgement where it was held that consumer cannot claim replacement after lapse of warranty period. In the present case, the product is within warranty. 
20.  OP1 is a dealer and is not liable towards warranty of the product.
21. TV has become a necessity in today world.  Complainant, despite paying the asking price for TV from a reputed company, was deprived from enjoying the product even during the period of warranty. It is difficult to comprehend as to why the panel was not replaced or rectified when the product was clearly under warranty despite repeated complaints/emails and several visits by service engineers. We therefore find OP2 guilty of deficiency in service in not replacing the defective panel within warranty. However it is also matter of record that the warranty was for a period of three years & the complainant has utilised the product for 20 month, & therefore replacement can not be ordered, but since the product was not repaired free of cost & accordingly keeping in view the facts of the matter, we direct OP2 to pay:-

1. Rs.23,500/-. i.e. 50% of the cost of TV. along with 6% interest from date of filing the complaint till the date of payment as the television was working for 20 months. 
2. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment and mental pain and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

22. This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

23. Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 17.8.2022

               DELHI

 

 

 

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President