Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/254/2023

RANI BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEE KAY VISION - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN KUMAR & VARUN BHARDWAJ

08 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/254/2023
Date of Institution	:	15.5.2023
Date of Decision	:	08/07/2024

 

RANI BANSAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WIFE OF TARSEM BANSAL, R/O HOUSE NO. 415, SECTOR 38-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. DEE KAY VISION THROUGH ITS PROPREITOR, S.C.O. NO. 374, SECTOR 35-B, CHANDIGARH.

2. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, 20TH-24TH FLOOR, TWO HORIZON CENTRE, GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR 43. DLF PHASE 5, GURGAON (HARYANA) 122202.

 

.....OPPOSITE PARTY

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP No.1 exparte.
	:	Sh.  Devinder Kumar, Advocate for OP NO.2

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that Ms. Shaveta Jindal  the sister in law of the complainant  purchased  a Samsung refrigerator  model No.RT56B6378SL/TL ( hereinafter referred to be subject refrigerator) on 16.11.2022 from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2  for a sum of Rs.62,200/-   and gifted the same to the complainant. The subject refrigerator was delivered at the residence of the complainant by the OP No.1.  The subject refrigerator worked fine for 20 days and thereafter started giving problem of very high crackling noise after every few minutes. The complainant ignored the same for about 2-3 days but the crackling noise  did not subside.  The complainant made a complaint to OP No.1 who asked the complainant to make complaint with  customer care of OP No.2. Accordingly the complainant lodged complaint with OP No.2 on their customer car number,  who deputed their technician who visited the house of the complainant on 10.12.2022  and after diagnosing the  subject refrigerator  informed the complainant that the noise problem cannot be rectified as there was manufacturing defect and the said defect was noted down by the technician in job sheet Annexure C-2.  Thereafter the complainant asked the OPs for the replacement of the subject refrigerator but no reply  was received. Thereafter the complainant raised the issue with OP No.2 on their whatsapp customer care and through email dated 12.12.2022  but nothing had been done by OP No.1 thereafter the complainant  approached OP No.2  by sending reminders and messages as well as emails  but with no result. Thereafter the complainant made request to the OPs to refund the invoice price but the OPs did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint
2. OP No.1 was properly served and when OP No.1 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.7.2023.
3. OP No.2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts, non-joinder and mis-joinder of party. However, it is admitted that the subject refrigerator was purchased by Ms. Shaveta Jindal and the complainant is not  covered under definition of consumer as she had not purchased the subject refrigerator  nor availed services  from the OPs. It is further alleged that in fact the noise issue was resolved as the same was not manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and thereafter the issue was closed with remarks of no defect found as the  subject refrigerator was working properly. It is further alleged that in fact as the complainant has simply alleged the defect  of noise crackling  in the subject refrigerator which cannot be determined  on the simple submission of the complainant rather it needed proper analysis test report to confirm the same.  Thus, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. The replacement of the subject refrigerator is not covered under the warranty policy.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In replication, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the Ms. Shaveta Jindal sister-in-law of the complainant purchased the subject refrigerator from OP No.1 and gifted the same to the complainant and OP No.1 delivered   the subject refrigerator to complainant at Chandigarh and on finding noise crackling  problem  in the subject refrigerator  the complainant reported the same to the OPs and thereafter OPs deputed their technician to resolve the issue who visited the house of the complainant and had given description of noise problem  in acknowledgement of service request as is also evident from Annexure C-2 and thereafter the complainant requested OP No.2 repeatedly through whatsapp as well as by sending email as is also evident from Annexure  C-3 (colly) to replace the subject refrigerator  or refund the invoice amount but till date the said problem has not been resolved by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is manufacturing defect in the subject refrigerator and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if there is manufacturing defect in the subject refrigerator  and the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that as it stands proved on record that the subject refrigerator  is having manufacturing defect of noise crackling  which could not be resolved by the OPs till date and the OPs neither resolved the problem nor refunded the  invoice price of the subject refrigerator to the complainant despite of several requests, the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
   3. On the other hand the counsel for the OP No.2 contended that  as it stands proved on record  that  the technician of the OP No.2 did not find any manufacturing defect  in the subject refrigerator and after resolving the issue, the complaint was closed and as the complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect by placing on record any analysis test report, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
   4. However, there is no force in the contention of the counsel for OP No.2 as it is clear from the job sheet Exhibit  C-2  that the technician of OP No.2 has given reference of noise defect in the subject refrigerator and there is nothing on record by the OPs showing that the said noise defect  was removed from the subject refrigerator  or that  despite of repeated requests through whatsapp as well emails  by the complainant,   the OP No.2 tried to find out or satisfy the complainant that there was no manufacturing defect  with the help  of analysis tests report in order to rule out that there was no manufacturing defect  in the subject refrigerator.  . Moreover,  OP  No.2 cannot  escape from its liability for the simple reason that  the complainant has not produced any analysis report/expert report to show  manufacturing defect  as onus lies upon the OPs to get the subject refrigerator diagnosed with the help of their  technician/expert in order to rule out the manufacturing defect but they utterly failed to place on record any document which could have proved that the subject refrigerator was not having any manufacturing defect. Thus, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹62200/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till onwards.
2. to pay lump-sum amount of ₹15000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards costs of litigation.

5.    This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.

6.    The complainant shall return the subject refrigerator to the OPs after compliance of the aforesaid order by the OPs and the OPs shall collect the subject refrigerator at their own risk and cost.

7.    Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

8.    Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 08/07/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member