Not providing spare part for TV costs Samsung Rs 15,000 | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Feb 21, 2017-Tuesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Not providing spare part for TV costs Samsung Rs 15,000

chandigarh Updated: Nov 13, 2014 19:06 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times

Terming them guilty of deficiency in services, district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, has directed an electronic goods firm, along with its dealer, to pay `15,000 as compensation for failing to provide a spare part required to repair a television set.

Disposing of a complaint filed by Madhu Dayal of Sector 9, the consumer forum directed Samsung India Electronics Private Limited and its Sector-35 based dealer Goldline Electronics to also refund `37,400 towards the product cost and pay `7,000 as litigation cost.

Dayal had purchased a Samsung LED TV on September 5, 2009, for `1.1 lakh. She submitted before the forum that the TV stopped working in September 2013. After lodging complaints, it was checked and she was told that the panel of the LED TV had become defective and needed to be replaced. The defective part was not replaced, even though the complainant was willing to pay its cost, as the TV was not in warranty. It was only after constant follow up that Samsung vide an e-mail dated October 16, 2013, showed its inability to replace the said part as it was unavailable.

Denying any deficiency, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited said any product purchased was likely to be outdated with the change of technology and particular part might not be available in case of change of technology or even in the case of upgrade of goods.

Complainant's counsel Pankaj Chandgothia submitted that upgrading goods did not allow a company to forget the customers who had bought their previously manufactured products. He contended that it was the duty of the manufacturer to ensure availability of the spare parts of their already sold products for a reasonable period of time.

Consumer forum, presided over by PL Ahuja on November 5, said, “It was the duty of the manufacturer and dealer to satisfy the complainant by getting her LED TV repaired in a perfect manner, but they failed. Therefore, not providing services to the complainant, despite lodging various complaints clearly proves deficiency in service, which certainly has caused immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant.”