| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 113 of 27-04-2017 Decided on: 29-07-2022 Jagtar Singh aged about 36 years S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o Village Lehra Bega, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., B-1, Sector-81, Phase-II, Noida (UP), Code-201305, through its M.D/Chairman. M/s Adev Electronics, 19416, Street No.3, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./ Partner.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. K.P. Sharma, counsel for OP No.1 Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for OP No.2 ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:- The complainant Jagtar Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Samsung India and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Samsung LED TV. At the time of purchase, he was assured that LED TV is of best quality and there is no complaint. He was also assured for best services in case of any complaint in the functioning of LED TV. It is alleged that after purchase of LED TV, the complainant started using it in his house. In the month of January 2015, LED TV went out of order. He lodged complaint with opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 sent the authorized service engineer to the house of the complainant and it got LED TV repaired. The complainant was assured that there will be no defect in LED TV in future. In the month of June 2015, again defect appeared in the LED TV. He again lodged complaint with opposite party No.2 on 23.6.2015. Opposite party No.2 sent its authorized representative to the house of the complainant. After checking LED TV, the service engineer told the complainant that its panel is required to be replaced. Since LED TV is out of warranty. Opposite party no.2 demanded approx. Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. The complainant agreed to pay the requisite charges. Ultimately, LED TV was repaired by replacing the panel. Opposite party No.2 charged Rs.15,218/- from the complainant on 23.6.2015. At that time, opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that there will be no problem in the functioning of LED TV in future. It is further alleged that soon after replacement of the panel of LED TV, it again started creating problem in the functioning. The complainant lodged complaints with opposite party No.2, it got LED TV removed and took the same to its workshop for providing the requisite service in the month of August/September 2015, but till date opposite party No.2 failed to repair LED TV and same is lying in its shop. The complainant repeatedly visited the office of opposite party No.2 and requested it to provide the requisite service and to return LED TV, but to no effect. He also got issued registered legal notice dated 19.8.2016 to opposite parties through his counsel, but to no response. It is also alleged that opposite party No.2 flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged that due to the act on part of opposite parties, he is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and loss of reputation. It is also alleged that opposite parties are liable to repair and return back LED TV to the complainant immediately or in alternative to replace the same with new one or refund of Rs.15,218/- charged by opposite party No.2 and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for mental tension and botheration etc. in addition to cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In its written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at its cost. The first and only complaint has been lodged by the complainant on 23.6.2015 i.e. after more than 2.5 years of purchase of LED TV. The service engineer visited the premises of complainant to check LED TV and found that its panel is needed to be replaced. The repair was done on chargeable basis. The product was duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has not reported any problem in his LED TV as per record available with opposite party No.1. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. Opposite party No.1 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party. There is no deficiency in service on its part. The product is out of warranty and any defect after the expiry of warranty period, opposite party No.1 is liable to rectify it on chargeable basis only. The complainant is not entitled for any relief against opposite party No.1. He has not approached to this Forum with clean hands. He has not sought permission of this Forum U/s 11(2) (b) of 'Act' before instituting this complaint. This complaint is liable to be dismissed U/s 26 of 'Act' as it is gross abuse of the process of law and is totally false and frivolous. Opposite party No.1 has also raised some other preliminary objections, reference of which is not relevant for resolving the controversy. On merits, opposite party No.1 has controverted all the averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the legal objections that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file this complaint. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as dealer of Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. has not been impleaded as party. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the complaint. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant On merits, it is pleaded that previously, opposite party No.2 was authorized service centre of opposite party No.l. The complaint was lodged by the complainant with opposite party No.1. On receipt of complaint, authorized engineer visited the house of the complainant and LED TV was repaired to his entire satisfaction. Thereafter the complaint was again lodged by the complainant with opposite party No.2. On checking, it was found that the panel of LED TV was required to be replaced and same was replaced with new one. LED TV started functioning properly. It is further pleaded that the price of panel of LED TV was charged from the complainant. In further written version, it is pleaded that the complainant brought LED TV to the workshop of opposite party No.2, it asked opposite party No.1 for supply of panel as the warranty is being provided by opposite party No.1 and parts are also manufactured by it, but opposite party No.1 failed to supply the panel. The delay, if any, is on the part of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is not at fault in any manner. The panel of LED TV can be replaced only after receipt. Opposite party No.2 is not personally liable for any warranty. Now, opposite party No.2 terminated its alliance with opposite party No.2 w.e.f. 31.3.2016. It remained not authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. As such, opposite party No.2 is not authorized to repair LED TV for and on behalf of opposite party No.1. This fact is duly conveyed to the complainant. He was requested many times to take away his LED TV from opposite party No.2 and to get repair it from authorized service centre of opposite party No.1, but he is not intentionally taking back his LED TV. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 15.1.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C2); postal receipt, (Ex.C3); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C4); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C5) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur dated 18.6.2018, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Hardinesh Aggarwal dated 11.9.2018, (Ex.OP-2/1) and closed the evidence. An application for additional evidence is filed by opposite party No.2 for production of copy of certificate of authorization as additional evidence. As the relationship between parties is not disputed and this application is filed at belated stage, So this application is dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased LED TV, of-course, manufactured by opposite party No.1. As per complainant himself, LED TV went out of order after expiry of warranty period and he got LED TV panel replaced from opposite party No.2 on payment of Rs.15,218/- in the month of June 2015 and the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of panel. These facts are also not disputed by opposite parties. It is further case of the complainant that after replacement of panel, LED TV again started creating problem and he again left LED TV with opposite party No.2. In the month of August/September 2015. Opposite parties neither repaired the same nor refunded the price of LED TV. It is admitted fact between the parties that panel of the LED TV was changed on chargeable basis. It is also admitted fact that opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of said panel and opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre with whom the LED TV is lying for repair. Opposite party No.2 specifically pleaded that he could not change the panel as it was not provided by opposite party No.1 under warranty of panel. This Commission is of the view that only sale of product or part should not be motive of opposite parties rather after sale service is also the duty of opposite parties and opposite parties can not run from their liability and consumer should not suffer without any fault on his part. Admittedly, the complainant got LED TV panel replaced from opposite party No.2 on payment of Rs.15,218/- and panel was manufactured by opposite party No.1. Opposite parties were supposed to ensure its proper services after its repair. It is also not disputed that LED TV is lying with opposite party No.2. Now, opposite party No.2 has pleaded that it has terminated its alliance with opposite party No.1 w.e.f. 31.3.2016, but LED TV was repaired before 31.3.2016. LED TV started creating problem before 31.3.2016 and it is with opposite party No.2 even before termination of alliance. Opposite party No.2 has charged price from the complainant for the reason that LED TV was beyond warranty. Therefore, opposite parties are under obligation to ensure its proper functioning. As such, deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties stands proved. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to handover LED TV after doing needful to ensure its proper functioning or to return the LED TV and price of panel of LED TV i.e. Rs.15,218/- along with interest @ 8% P.A. From September 2015 when LED TV was left with opposite party No.2 for repair. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 29-07-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
(Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
