Skip to content


Dr. Shailesh Ahuja Vs. Samsung India Electronics Limited and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. FA/2013 of 392
Judge
AppellantDr. Shailesh Ahuja
RespondentSamsung India Electronics Limited and Others
Excerpt:
.....made efforts at his level but he could not get any benefit. therefore, the appellant (complainant) filed complaint before the district forum seeking compensation under different heads, as mentioned in the compliant. 3. the respondents (ops) filed their written statement before the district forum and pleaded that the appellant (complainant) has not mentioned the date of purchase of the t.v. according to the bill produced along with complaint it appears that the said t.v. was purchased by the appellant (complainant) on 30.07.2011. in the complaint, the appellant (complainant) has mentioned that he made complaint regarding problem in the t.v. but he had not mentioned on date and complaint no. and he also not mentioned that on which date he contacted to bilaspur, raipur and delhi office of.....
Judgment:

R.S. Sharma, President:

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 04.05.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.159/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant).

2. Briefly stated the facts of complaint are : that the appellant (complainant) had gone to Thailand with friend Satyavrat Sadani in the year 2011 as a tourist where he purchased a L.E.D. at a price of Rs.50,000/- from Indra Sound and Video Limited and he had also paid a sum of Rs.16,223/- as customs duty. The said T.V. worked properly only 1-2 months and thereafter it started creating problem. The appellant (complainant) contacted to the Bilaspur office, Raipur office and Delhi office of the respondents (OPs) from where mechanics came and repaired the T.V. but thereafter again it was having problem and the employees and officers of the Company were demanding a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the repairing of the same. As the T.V. was within guarantee period, therefore, the appellant (complainant) refused to pay any amount. The employees of the respondents have refused to repair the vehicle. Thus, the respondents (OPs) have committed deficiency in service by not replacing the T.V. or repairing it. The appellant (complainant) made efforts at his level but he could not get any benefit. Therefore, the appellant (complainant) filed complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation under different heads, as mentioned in the compliant.

3. The respondents (OPs) filed their written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the appellant (complainant) has not mentioned the date of purchase of the T.V. According to the bill produced along with complaint it appears that the said T.V. was purchased by the appellant (complainant) on 30.07.2011. In the complaint, the appellant (complainant) has mentioned that he made complaint regarding problem in the T.V. but he had not mentioned on date and complaint no. and he also not mentioned that on which date he contacted to Bilaspur, Raipur and Delhi office of the Samsung Company and had also not produced any evidence in this regard. In the warranty card which was produced by the appellant (complainant) most of the columns were left blank i.e. buy date. In the copy of bill and warranty produced by the appellant (complainant), seal of dealer is not affixed, which is required for obtaining warranty services. On 17.09.2012, for the first time, the appellant (complainant) made complaint before call centre and the complaint No. is 842095053 and claim No.4138566597. The appellant (complainant) made complaint regarding the T.V. on 17.09.2012 for the first i.e. after period of 1 one year from the date of purchase of the T.V. i.e. 30.07.2011. For the redressal of the complaint made by the appellant (complainant) the service engineer of the O.P.No.3 namely Shri Vinod Daheriya contacted the appellant (complainant) on 19.09.2012 and demanded warranty certificate. The appellant (complainant) provided the bill of the said T.V. in which date 30.07.2011 was mentioned, then the service engineer informed the appellant (complainant) that from the date of bill i.e. 30.07.2011 period of one year had already expired, therefore, for repairing of the T.V. charges was demanded. It has been further pleaded that in the warranty card of the T.V. produced by the appellant (complainant), international warranty has not mentioned therefore on the basis of above warranty card the demand of the appellant (complainant) for service warranty in India is wrong. The appellant (complainant) purchased the T.V. by paying the price at Thailand. The appellant (complainant) has not produced copy of international warranty which is prevailing in India and he has also not produced appropriate documents regarding warranty service, therefore, the District Forum, has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, dismissed the complaint.

5. Shri Rakesh Puri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) argued that the T.V. manufactured by the Samsung Company was purchased by the appellant (complainant) from Indra Sound and Video Limited, Bangkok, Thailand and the appellant (complainant) deposited price of the T.V. Rs.50,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs.16,223/- as customs duty. The T.V. only worked properly for near about 1-2 months and thereafter creating problems. He further argued that the appellant (complainant), Bilaspur, Raipur and Delhi offices of the respondents (OPs), but T.V. was not repaired properly by the respondents (OPs) and they demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for repairing of the same. The T.V. was within warranty period and therefore, it is the duty of the respondents (OPs) to repair the T.V. with taking any repairing charges from the appellant (complainant) but the respondents (OPs) demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as repairing charges, which comes in the category of deficiency in service, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is entitled for the compensation from the respondents (OPs), as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.

6. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (OPs), has opposed the above arguments and supported the impugned order.

7. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.

8. The respondent (complainant) filed documents i.e. bill dated 30.07.2011, receipt No.373998 dated 31.07.2011 issued by Commissioner of Customs Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai

9. The appellant (complainant) filed bill regarding purchase of the T.V. and receipt for payment of customs duty. Another document filed by the appellant (complainant) is warranty card. In the said document, Model Name MX-10A, Serial No.ADKQ6VKQ300036 and date of purchase 08.07.2008 were mentioned, but the appellant (complainant) could not establish that the said document is warranty cad. According to bill, the appellant (complainant) purchased the T.V. on 30.07.2011 and document i.e. warranty card, the model name MX-10A and date of purchase was mentioned as 08.07.2008. There is contradiction in these two documents.

10. According to the appellant (complainant), he purchased T.V. from Indra Sound and Video Limited, Bangkok, Thailand on 30.07.2011 vide bill no.176. Another document is receipt No.D.No.373998 dated 31.07.2011 issued by Commissioner of Customs “ Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Sahar, Mumbai and a sum of Rs.16,223/- was received from the appellant (complainant). The appellant (complainant) has also filed another document which is Samsung Camcorder International Warranty. In this document in para 5 it is mentioned that "warranty repairs must be carried out by Authorized Service Center of Authorized Samsung Dealers. No reimbursement will be made for repairs carried out by non Samsung Dealers and any such repair work and damage to the products caused by such repair work will not be covered by this warranty service."

11. From bare perusal of the said Samsung Camcorder International Warranty, it appears that the T.V. was purchased on 08.07.2009, therefore, there is material contradiction between the documents filed by the appellant (complainant) himself. If the said document i.e. International Warranty is relied upon then it appears that the T.V. purchased on 08.07.2008 and the document i.e. bill is relied upon then it appears that the T.V. was purchased on 30.07.2011. Hence the said International Warranty was not effective when the complaint was made by the appellant (complainant) before the respondents (OPs) regarding problem in T.V.

12. In the complaint, the appellant (complainant) simply pleaded that he purchased the T.V. in the year 2011 and date and month was not mentioned and even it is not mentioned that when he made complaint before the respondents (OPs) regarding fault in the T.V. The appellant (complainant) did not plead that on which date T.V. started creating problem and when he made complaint before the respondents (OPs). If the appellant (complainant) wants to take benefit of the warranty, then burden is on the appellant (complainant) to establish that the defect in the T.V. was occurred within warranty period, but the appellant (complainant) has not been able to prove that the T.V. started creating problem within the warranty period.

13. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

14. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant), being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //