JUDGEMENT.
DATED :11-02-2015.
It is a complaint case for deficiency of service.
The case of the Complainant, in short, is this that he purchased three numbers of Samsung Split A.C.s from the O.P. no.2 (i) Big Bazar Dreamplex Complex, Durgapur on 20-06-2009. Out of three A.C.s one got disordered on 06-02-2014 which was verified by the engineers of O.P. no.2( ii ), Speed Service of Samsung Service Centre, Bankura on 11-02-2014 taking Service Charge of Rs.112/-. It is learnt from the said engineer that the case cannot be entertained as the compressor, fitted with the outdoor unit does not bear the sticker of the manufacturing company pasted on the body showing serial no. etc. and even the writing of the original Invoice got faded. The Warranty period an especially in case of the Compressor is five-years from the date of purchase and this is still under warranty. If there be any fault regarding disappearance of the Sticker that must be borne by the manufacturing company Samsung. It is presumed that in course of time during the period from 20-06-2009 to the date of the report, the Sticker got damaged under the impact of direct heat, rainfall and may disappear from the body that cannot be explained. As regards fading of writing on the
Page 1 / 4.
Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2014.
invoice, it is due to something wrong in painting ink. The Complainant engaged one local A.C. Mechanic to investigate into the said defect but the said mechanic after examination reported that the sticker showing the name of the manufacturing company is still pasted on the back side of the compressor which is seen with the help of a mirror, placed at the back –side of it. The outdoor unit of the A.C. had been installed by the said authorized service centre. It may be that in order to deprive of his legitimate claim the engineer of the said authorized service centre may take the plea of disappearing the Sticker which is totally unjustified, illegal and false. Hence this case praying for direction upon the O.P. party for replacing the disordered compressor with a new one which is under the warranty till now.
The O.P. no.1 has contested this case by filing written version denying allegations of the Complainant contending inter alia that three numbers of Samsung Split A.C. were sold by the O.P. no.1 in good condition and delivered the same to the petitioners along with all related documents which the petitioners accepted on his full satisfaction and raised no complained thereafter within 4-years. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no.1 and being a dealer it is his responsibility to sell it and to deliver it in good condition. The O.P. no.1 had no information regarding any service of the A.C. Machine by the engineer who expressed that the Compressor does not bear the Sticker of the manufacturing company and the writing of the original invoice got faded. The O.P. no.1 has come to learn about the said fact after receiving notice from this Ld. Forum. The Complainant never asked for any support or service of the O.P. no.2(i). The Complainant is duty bound to preserve all the documents in his custody in good condition. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. no.2(i) Big Bazar and the case is liable to be dismissed.
On the pleadings of both the parties now the question is whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons.
The Complainant has made same submissions as stated in the petition of complaint and has further submitted that there was five-year warranty on compressor of the A.C. Machine which he purchased on 20-06-2009 along with two other A.C. Machines but within five-years the Compressor has become defective
Page 2 / 4.
Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2014.
on 06-02-2014 and one engineer of the Service Centre, Samsung Co. examined the machine and received service charge of Rs.112/-. But the defect has not been removed as the Sticker of the manufacturing company which was pasted with the body has not been found. So, it was the defect of the O.Ps. who are duty bound to replace the defective compressor with a new one.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. no.2(i) has not submitted any written notes of argument but has made same submission as stated in the written version. Ld. Lawyer has further submitted that the O.P. duly sold three A.C. Machines to the Complainant on 20-06-2009 and delivered in good condition with all relevant papers. The Complainant never informed to this O.P. no.2(i) regarding any defect of the compressor or service made by one engineer of the O.P. no.2(ii) save and except filing this present case. So, there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this contesting O.P.
Fact remains as admitted by both the parties that this Complainant purchased three A.C. Machines of Samsung Co. on 20-06-2009.
There is no document to prove that the Complainant took any step for service of his said purchased A.C. Machines at any time upto 11-02-2014 i.e. a few months prior to expiry of five-year warranty.
The Complainant has filed a Xerox copy of Samsung A.C. Warranty, Warranty Check, Warranty Registration which shows that five-years of warranty is provided on compressor and there is one condition to this effect that warranty is not applicable if warranty card is not completely filled, or if warranty card is not approved by authorized dealer.
The fact remains that the said Xerox copy of Samsung A.C. warranty so filed by the Complainant does not bear any signature of the authorized dealer and it is not duly filled in and the number of the A.C. Machine purchased with date has not been mentioned in the instant document.
Moreover, we find that the Complainant has not produced any original warranty card for his alleged A.C. defective machine to show the number of A.C. Machine purchased with date or approved by the authorized dealer i.e. the O.P. no.2 (i) Big Bazar Dereamplex Complex, Durgapur.
There is another allegation of the Complainant that the writing of original
Page 3 / 4.
Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2014.
invoice issued by the O.P. no.2(i) got faded and a Xerox copy of the same has been filed by the Complainant to prove it. So, the O.P. no.2(i) should be directed to issue a fresh duplicate Invoice with date 20-06-2009 in respect of the A.C. Machine purchased by the Complainant and the Complainant will produce the said fade invoice before the said O.P. as soon as possible.
In the above circumstances we find that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. and the case should be disposed of with the above direction upon the O.P. no.2(i).
In the circumstances the above point is disposed of accordingly.
In the result the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complaint Case No.72 of 2014 is disposed of on contest to this effect :- the O.P. no.2(i) Big Bazar Dreamplex Complex, near Bengal Srishti, Durgapur, W.B. will re-issue a fresh duplicate Invoice with date 20-06-2009 in the name of the Complainant in respect of his purchased A.C. Machine subject to condition that the Complainant will produce his faded Invoice before the O.P., as early as possible.
Let a copy of this Judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rule.
(L. N. CHATTOPADHYAY) (Y. HALDER)
Ld. Member Ld. President
Page 4 / 4.
