DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 26.04.2022.
CC/72/2022
1. Sicil Sadanandan, S/o.Sadanandan, - Complainant
63 years, Near Creative Public School,
Thasrack, Thanneer Panthal,
Kinasseri, Palakkad-678 701.
(By Adv. Viju.K.Raphel)
VS
1. Bismi Connect Pvt. Ltd., 2/1199, -Opposite Parties
Koottupatha, Kodumba Grama Panchayat,
Chandranagar (P.O),
Palakkad-678 007.
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
(OP2 by Adv. Joseph Devassy)
ORDER
BY SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a fridge manufactured by the 2nd opposite party from the 1st opposite party showroom on 19.04.2021 and it was delivered to him on 20.04.2021.
On 24.07.2021, he lodged a complaint with the 1st opposite party about the cooling of the fridge and they attended to it. They told that the problem was due to some dust present in the Fridge and they removed it. But even after that, there was no cooling in the Fridge and Freezer and it was not working.
Again he made complaints on 17.03.2022, 22.03.2022 and on 14.04.2022. On 19.04.2022, some technicians of the opposite party attended the issue and they replaced one damaged part with a new one. But the issue was not resolved. So, he approached the 1st opposite party for getting replacement; but they were not ready to solve the issue. The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and strain as he could not use the Fridge. He suffered a financial loss of Rs.30,000/- due to non-use of the Fridge for 9 months.
So, he filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties to replace the Fridge or in the alternative to refund its cost and to award compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by him together with cost of the litigation.
2. After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party appeared and filed version. The version of the 2nd opposite party was rejected as it was filed beyond statutory period.
3. The 1st opposite party in their version contended that the complainant visited their showroom and purchased the Fridge manufactured by Samsung according to his own wish after thoroughly inspecting the product. The 1st opposite party has never provided or promised any after sale service and warranty is provided by the 2nd opposite party, manufacturer. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the product purchased by him is having any sort of defect which requires total replacement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove the allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. So, the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following points arise for consideration;
1) Whether the opposite parties failed to give proper and timely after sale service to the complainant as per the warranty terms?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4) Reliefs as to cost and compensation?
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 marked as evidence. Complainant filed an application as I.A.No.23/2023 for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner to inspect the Fridge and it was allowed. The Expert Commissioner’s Report is marked as Ext.C1. The 1st opposite party did not file proof affidavit and evidence was closed. Heard the complainant and the 1st opposite party filed notes of argument.
6. Point No.1
The complainant’s case is that the Refrigerator which he purchased from the 1st opposite party and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party on 19.04.2021 started showing problems within three months itself. He made the first complaint regarding the product on 24.07.2021. Eventhough the 1st opposite party’s technician attended, the same problem persisted. After that, he lodged complaints on 2-3 occasions and the opposite parties promised to send Service Engineer of Samsung to check the issue. Finally, the technicians after inspecting the products, changed some major parts; but could not resolve the issue.
7. The 1st opposite party contended that after the sale, service and warranty has to be provided by the manufacturer and they are only Dealers and not responsible for that. The 2nd opposite party failed to file version within statutory period and hence, it was rejected.
8. Complainant produced three documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the Tax Invoice dated 19.04.2021 issued by the 1st opposite party which shows the purchase of the Refrigerator. Ext.A2 is the copy of the communications made by the Samsung customer care with the complainant on various dates.
9. Expert Commissioner in Ext.C1 report has noted the defects in the refrigerator. “The cooling coil fan is not working properly on both sides of the Refrigerator and the body of the Refrigerator produces more heat. Within a short span of purchasing the product, one of its major components is replaced that is the condenser and the cooling coil. After replacing the major components, it is observed that the cooling is not sufficient to preserve the food shows it is major cause of manufacturing defect.”
10. These defects occurred during the warranty period itself. Both the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties are bound to attend the issues in the product and they failed to provide proper after sale service. Hence, point No.1 is found against the opposite parties.
11. Point Nos.2 & 4
The Expert Commissioner reported that the alleged defect in the Refrigerator is due to manufacturing issues and it is very difficult to identify and cure.
The 1st opposite party being the dealer is bound to contact the manufacturer and resolve the issue by repairing/replacing the product. They cannot escape liability simply by pointing out that the warranty and service is provided by the manufacturer.
12. Here both opposite parties failed to attend the issue and there is deficiency in service on their part. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.
Since the Commissioner has reported that it is a manufacturing defect, the complainant is entitled to get the product replaced or refund of the price of the product. Further, the complainant suffered mental agony, financial loss and inconveniences due to the nonworking of the Refrigerator in short span of time.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties; jointly and severally.
1) To refund Rs.78,600/- being the cost of the Refrigerator together with 10% interest from 19.04.2021 till realisation.
2) We further direct them to pay Rs.20,000/- for their deficiency in service, Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss suffered and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 21st day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The tax invoice produced along with the complainant.
Ext.A2: The whatsaap chat print outs with the opposite parties.
Ext.A3: The authorization given by the complainant.
Ext.C1: Commissioner report.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil.
Cost : 10,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
