DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.258 of 3.9.2007 Decided on : 4.1.2008 <br /> <br /> Mewa Singh S/o Hans Raj, R/o B-266, NFL Colony, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus <br /> 1.Bhatia Electronics, SCF No. 1, The Mall, Near Railway Station, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> 2.Samsung Service, Home Care Service Centre, 13047/3, Namdev Marg, Bathinda through its Incharge/Branch Manager.<br /> 3.Samsung India Electronics, 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61-Nehru Palace, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Chairman.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Rajiv Kumar Rajan, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party No.1<br /> Sh. Pardeep Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2<br /> Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 3<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant was to purchase one Refrigerator. Opposite party No. 1 i.e. authorised dealer/distributor of Samsung India Electronics was approached by him for this purpose. He was assured that the Refrigerator manufactured by Samsung India Electronics are of best quality and are free from all defects. Moreover, the price is less than the Refrigerators of other companies. Believing the assurance, complainant purchased one Refrigerator model RT26, bearing Sr. No. 0057ZAXC00137D for Rs. 15,700/-. Invoice/bill No. 5608 dated 2.11.2005 was issued. Guarantee of one year was given on this product. After eight months from the date of purchase, its colour started fading. Original white colour had started changing into yellow. Complaint was lodged with opposite party No. 2 which was registered at Sr. No. 742 dated 1.10.2006. 2/3 days after the complaint was lodged representative of the opposite parties had come. He had apprised that the defect is permanent and is not curable and that only paint can be done. He (complainant) did not agree to get the Refrigerator painted as offer was not as per guarantee. It is added by him that as per terms and conditions of the guarantee, he is entitled to get this product replaced with a new one. He made repeated requests to opposite party No.1. Several phone calls were made at mobile phone Nos. 98156-04538, 98726-00214 and at No. 011-1800110011. Ultimately, request was registered as No. 84046-00930 dated 27.1.2007. No effective steps were taken to remove his grievances. Opposite party No. 2 which is the service provider of opposite party No. 3 was also approached. Its officials openly declared that nothing can be done. Legal notice dated 9.2.2007 was got issued by him to the opposite parties through his counsel. Baseless reply was sent by opposite party No. 2. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund him the price of the Refrigerator or to replace it; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act; he himself is a wrong doer and he has no locus-standi to file the complaint; intricate questions of law and facts are involved and as such, case cannot be decided in summary way; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; complaint is barred under the provisions of Contract Act; it is not within time and is false and frivolous. It admits that it is the dealer of opposite party No.2. Complainant purchased Refrigerator for Rs. 15,700/- vide invoice dated 2.11.2005. Guarantee was not given. Warranty is provided by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No. 3. It denies the fading of the colour of the Refrigerator. It is added by it that its act and conduct is confined to the sale of the Refrigerator. It has nothing to do qua the service of the product. Opposite party No. 3 has appointed opposite party No. 2 as its authorised service station to provide service. It does not admit that its representative had gone to attend the complaint of the complainant and he had told him that defect is of permanent nature and is not curable. There is no term for the replacement of the product under the terms of the warranty. Even the period of warranty has expired much prior to the filing of the complaint. Alleged notice has been issued after the expiry of period of warranty. It denies remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed its version taking preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; he has not come come with clean hands; he is estopped from filing it by his act and conduct; complicated questions of law and facts are involved and as such, controversy can also be decided by the civil court and complaint is false and frivolous. It has been clearly mentioned in the warranty that it does not cover normal wear and tear of parts (which age over period of time/usage) like paint peel off, colour changes etc. Complainant is well aware of these terms. On receiving the complaint, its Mechanic/Engineer had visited the complainant to inspect the Refrigerator. He did not allow him to inspect it. On outer inspection, Mechanic/Engineer had conveyed that alleged defects are not covered under warranty. In order to maintain cordial relations, he had expressed his willingness to get the Refrigerator painted, but he did not agree. It does not deny the sale of the Refrigerator by opposite party No. 1 and registration of complaint of the complainant at Sr. No. 742 dated 1.10.2006. Complainant was pressurising it to replace the Refrigerator with a new one. Fading of the colour of the Refrigerator is not the result of sub standard quality of the product. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply stating that it produces high quality Refrigerators which are covered by warranty. As per its terms and conditions, goods are supplied free from defects. In case, any defect covered under the warranty is found, it is immediately taken care of. Paint jobs have been expressly excluded. Warranty was for a period of one year i.e. from 2.11.2005 to 1.11.2006. It denies that colour had faded. Colour can fade due to innumerable reasons.<br /> 5. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Mewa Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.9), photocopy of bill dated 2.11.2005 (Ex.C.1), photocopies of letters dated 29.1.2007 & 10.2.2007 (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.7 respectively), photocopy of legal notice dated 9.2.2007 (Ex.C.3), photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.4 to Ex.C.6) respectively and photocopy of warranty card (Ex.C.8).<br /> 6. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. Harpreet Singh, Proprietor of opposite party No.1, Ashok Kumar, Manager of opposite party No. 2 & Iqbal Singh Saini of opposite party No. 3 respectively & warranty manual (Ex.R.4).<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered the written arguments submitted by the complainant, opposite parties No. 1 and 3.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that colour of the Refrigerator had started fading after eight months after the date of purchase. It had started converting into yellow. He further submitted that as per clause No. 11 of the warranty, it is to be seen as to what is the age over period of time/usage and for this purpose, opposite parties have fixed the criteria by giving warranty of one year, which means the period/usage within one year is age for this condition. He further argued that complaint was lodged with the opposite parties on 1.10.2006 and Refrigerator in question was purchased on 2.11.2005, defect had occurred just within one year. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to refund the price of the Refrigerator or replace it and pay damages.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that warranty does not cover normal wear and tear of parts (which age over period of time/usage) like paint peel off, colour changes etc. They further argued that replacement or refund of the price is not permissible as per warranty and change of colour may be due to various reasons.<br /> 10. We have considered respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Principal grouse of the complainant is that after about eight months after the purchase of the Refrigerator on 2.11.2005, its white colour by fading had started changing into yellow. Admittedly, warranty of one year was allowed on the Refrigerator from the date of purchase. Copy of the warranty is Ex.R.4. Question for determination is as to whether warranty conditions cover change of colour. The reply to our minds is in the negative. Interpretation to condition No. 11 of the warranty as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant, cannot be given. It cannot be said that this condition No. 11 would apply after the expiry of one year. Words (age over period of time/usage) do not imply that this warranty condition No. 11 would become applicable after the expiry of the period of warranty. Rather, this condition reveals that colour change of the Refrigerator is not covered by the warranty. Case of the complainant is not regarding any other defect covered by the warranty. When warranty does not cover colour change, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Moreover, learned counsel for the complainant could not show us that due to change in colour, Refrigerator can be replaced or its price can be refunded as per terms and conditions of the warranty. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that fading of colour may be due to various reasons e.g. if it is exposed to sun light, washed/cleaned with high powered chemicals etc.<br /> 11. As a result of what has been discussed above, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 4.1.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />