BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF MARCH, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.126/2022
PRESENT:
SRI. RAJU K.S:MEMBER
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Nalini Kanta Jena,
S/o. Jaganath Jena,
Aged about 46 years,
No.12, 8th Main, 4th Cross,
Hoysal Nagar,
Bengaluru,
Karnataka-560016. …… COMPLAINANT
(Party in person)
V/s
Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,
6th Floor. Dlf Centre Sansad Marg,
New Delhi, New Delhi DL 110001IN. ……OPPOSITE PARTY
(Represented by Sri.T.N. Ramesh, Adv)
*****
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER
The present complaint is filed U/sec. 35 of Consumer Protection Act-2019 with the prayer to direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.800/-along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment.
- The brief facts of the complaint is as under;
The complainant is the party in person .He had purchased one LED monitor of the opposite party brand from Kundan computers on 15 February 2020 by paying a sum of Rs.8300/-.
3. Further submits that the said device was not working properly and had gone to the authorised service centre of the opposite party and they have refused the service by saying the external damages was not be covered under the warranty period.
4. Further the complainant submits that the external damage was not caused by him and the device is still under warranty period and had requested the opposite party several times to replace or refund the amount of the said device but of no use. The complainant issued the legal notice on 21.10.2021 and there was no reply from the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is left with no other alternatives to approach this commission for the redressal of his grievances under the consumer Act-2019. Hence, this complaint.
5. The counsel for the opposite party had filed detailed version. Partly denied the averments made by the complainant and contended that in the entire complaint there is no specific allegation that the monitor suffers from inherent manufacturing defect and not repairable and admitted about external damage to the monitor and also contended that the complainant used the subject monitor without any interruption till October 2021 and requested to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6. The complainant has filed an affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and marked EX.P1 to EX.P5. The counsel for the opposite party also has filed an affidavit in the form of their evidence and documents are marked as EX.R1 to EX.R3.
7. The counsel for the opposite party filed written arguments with citation.
8. Heard the arguments
- The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service of the opposite parties?
ii) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for?
iii) What order?
10. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In negative.
Point No.2: Does not arise for consideration.
Point No.3: As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1 & 2:- To avoid the repetition of the facts we have discussed point number one and two together. PW1 and RW1 have reiterated the facts of the complaint and version. It is the contention of the complainant that he had purchased the subject monitor from the opposite party on 15th Feb 2020 from Kundan computers by paying the amount of Rs.8,300/-, thereafter the subject device was not working properly. He went to the authorised service centre of opposite party but they have refused by saying the external damages was not be covered under warranty period. The damage caused to the subject monitor was external one and not caused by him and seeks to refund or replace of the subject monitor from the opposite party claiming the said damage is the manufacture defect as it is under the warranty period, the opposite party didn’t reply to his legal notice dated 21.10.2021.
12. The counsel for the opposite party had filed his version and written arguments and taken the contention that the complainant himself admitted the fact that the damage caused to the subject monitor is external one and also filed the following citation in support of his contention, Dr. Hema Vasanthi Dakoria V/s Bajaj Auto Ltd and others, in RP No.390/2003 on the file of Hon'ble NCDRC.
As per settled position of law that if A part could be replaced or a defect could be removed then replacement cannot be ordered. In this case, no evidence has been led by the complainant to say that there was a manufacturing defect. Hence we are unable to satisfy ourselves about allegation of manufacturing defect in the Scooter.
13. On perusal of the above citation this commission has observed here that the complainant failed to prove the damage caused to the subject monitor was under manufacture defect and it is not repairable one and also the complainant used the subject monitor nearly two years from the date of its purchase. Therefore it cannot be said that the damage caused to the subject monitor was a manufacture defect.
14. Moreover, the complainant is seeking refund of Rs.800/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-which is not clear in his complaint, for what he had spent that Rs.800/-.
15. The complainant has not produced the guarantee and Warranty certificate of the said monitor. However, the complainant failed to prove his complaint. Hence, we answer point number one and two in negative.
16. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed without cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 06th day of MARCH, 2022)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
-
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainants side:
Sri. Nalini Kanta Jena, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainant side:
1) Office copy of the legal notice dt.21.10.2021
2) Xerox copy of the postal confirmation.
3) Computer downloaded email letter dt.22.10.2021.
4) Xerox copy of the invoice dt.15.02.2020.
5) Computer downloaded copy of the invoice dt.20.10.2021.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri. S. Vignesh, who being the Area Service Manager in opposite party has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:
1. Letter of authorization.
2. Damaged monitor photo.
3. Repair estimation.
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA, K)
-
