Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member .
Brief facts of the case:-
One Kirty Chandra Panda files complaint against (1) Chandan Brother, Bargarh and (2) Samsung India Pvt ltd, New Delhi, alleging deficiency of service for which he received inconveniences and suffering along with pecuniary losses.
To further prove their case they relied on documents as following:-
Xerox copy of Money Receipt by Chandan Brothers.
Xerox copy of daily call register(one page).
Xerox copy of warranty card.
One preliminary scrutiny the complaint passes the tests for admission and admitted for adjudication of the issue by this Forum.
Complainant's version:-
That on Dt.25/10/2009 he purchased a Samsung washing machine vide model No. WA82VSL Serial No. W035ZCS803553 for Rs.13,400/-(Rupees thirteen thousand four hundred)only for his own use.
That after a few days the machine showed problems and when Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1(one) he said that there is some manufacturing defects, but he repaired the machine by his own people.
That on Dt.14/10/2011 the machine gone dead immediately Opposite Party No.1(one) was informed as the machine was in guarantee period and Opposite Party No.1(one) entered the complaint in a daily call register and assured to refer the case to Opposite Party No.2(two) for replacement of defective parts.
But nothing has happened there after, and after waiting for sometime when the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1(one), he learned that Opposite Party No.2(two) has refused to entertain the complaint as guarantee period is over and under the circumstances complaint suffered immensely which is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
Notices were sent to the Opposite Parties, Opposite Party No.1(one) set ex-parte on Dt.19/03/2013 for non appearance even after sufficiency of service of notice. Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared and filed their version denying the charges levelled against them on Dt.19/03/2013. Opposite Party No.2(two) have also filed the following documents and relied on them to prove their case.
Customer Service Record Card Dt.07/12/2011.
Customer Service Record Card Dt.13/12/2011.
Further Opposite Party No.2(two) have filed following documents on Dt.08/04/2013.
Original Cash memo No. 944 Dt.25/10/2009.
Original customer details cum warranty card.
Opposite Party No.2(two)'s version.
That the Complaint is not maintainable as per laws. That Opposite Party No.1(one) is only the dealer and not authorized to provide services on receive any defective set for repairing and it was not within knowledge of Opposite Party No.2(two) about the said problem and repairing by Opposite Party No.1(one). That this Opposite Party No.2(two) can not say anything about the so called Daily Call Register by Opposite Party No.1(one). That the Complainant is aware of the fact, that whenever there arise a problem on the machine he has to get service by authorized service center and not by Opposite Party No.1(one). That Complainant approached authorized service center of Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.07/12/2011 out side the guarantee period, still the authorized service center sent their service engineer who returned without replacing the defective part as there was no guarantee period at that time and Complainant denied to pay for the part. That, even though there was no guarantee period left as a goodwill the authorized service center of Opposite Party No.2(two) agreed to repair the machine free of cost and ordered the said defective part and on Dt.13/12/2011 sent their service engineer to do the needful but the Complainant was not ready to repair the machine fitting this new part rather insisted total replacement of the machine.
That Opposite Party No.2(two) never refused to provide services to the Complainant within the guarantee period and in fact was even ready to help the Complainant even after the guarantee period, hence no deficiency of service lies against Opposite Party No.2(two) and prays dismissal of the complaint.
Final hearing was done on Dt.16/04/2014 with presence of both the parties who submitted and argued their respective cases and defence considered all the facts presented and documents attached to the case record carefully which brings out the following.
(1) Most of the facts stated were admitted and needed no further probe like the purchase of the machine it being defective, service provided by Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) the Complainant being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
(2) Opposite Party No.2(two) challenges the Daily Call Register page copy filed by the Complainant and said that document is not material against Opposite Party No.2(two) for allegation of deficiency in service in absence of Opposite Party No.1(one) it was not possible to get the full information and details about this documents it is well understood that call registers are normally maintained by the authorized service provider or service agents of the company and not the dealer and this piece of document do not go against the Opposite Party No.2(two) however it is understood that information about the defective machine was with Opposite Party No.1(one) who should have assisted the Complainant telling him where to approach for authorized services or giving contacts of service agents of the company which was not done rather Opposite Party No.1(one) went to the extent of unauthorized invasion to right and obligation of Opposite Party No.2(two) by repairing the machine by his personal earlier stages before the machine gone dead.
(3) Forum find though a discrepancy with submission of Opposite Party No.2(two), as though the purchase slip/receipt original and xerox both shows Dt.25/10/2009 to be the purchase date, Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted the purchase date to be Dt.24/10/2009 and expiration if the guarantee on Dt.23/10/2011. The purchase dates mentioned in their documents vide customer service cards also shows the date of purchase to be Dt.24/10/2009. So how this happened is not detected and Forum goes with the purchase date to be Dt.25/10/2009 as per the original purchase slip filed with the case record. Even the service cards do not bear customer signature in both of them.
(4) The guarantee card filed by the both the Parties shows that washing machines of Opposite Party No.2(two) company are covered for a period of two years only the top lid is out of guarantee. Accordingly the washing machine has to be within the guarantee period till Dt.24/10/2011 enabling the Complaint eligible for free repairs for problem occurred.
(5) The document Daily Call Register by Opposite Party No.1(one) filed by Complainant shows that information was received by Opposite Party No.1(one) but was challenged by Opposite Party No.2(two) and could not be proved in absence of Opposite Party No.1(one). But looking into all other circumstances Forum accepts version of the Complainant that he had approached Opposite Party No.1(one)for correction of the problem to his machine within the warranty period and he was not guided properly by Opposite Party No.1(one) for which Complainant suffered inconveniences.
Under the facts and circumstances Opposite Parties are jointly and severally found to be liable of deficiency of service and Forum orders that:-
Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to repair the machine free of cost repairing the required parts without charging to for this parts to make it operational within fifteen days of this Order as they would have done the same if information was there in time.
Opposite Party No.2(two) can recover the cost associated with direction above from Opposite Party No.1(one) who has not done the needful for which the problem accrued Opposite Party No.2(two) are also free to take any required action as per their terms against Opposite Party No.1(one) from this deviations/problem.
Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay amount of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only as compensation for all harassment and mental agony received by the Complainant, which also includes litigation cost with in one month from the date of Order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry @12%( twelve percent) interest per annum till the actual realization of amount.
The complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Smt. Anjali Behera ) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
