BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 139 of 2016
Date of Institution : 25.05.2016
Date of Decision : 1.8.2017
Pritam Dass son of Shri Darshan Dass, resident of village Chamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Delhi Electronics, through its Prop. Incharge, Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa (Dealer of Samsung Company).
2. Samsung India Electronics Limited, Corporate Office, 7 & 8th Floor IFCI Tower, 61- Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110019.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………….PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukhtiar Kamboj, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief is that complainant purchased one Samsung split air conditioner of 1.5 ton and the price of the same was Rs.47,000/-. He had purchased the same under exchange scheme from op no.1 against the cash price of Rs.43,000/- vide cash invoice No.9495 dated 2.5.2015. The op no.1 on behalf of op no.2 had given guarantee of two years in case of any manufacturing defect in the said air conditioner and also given five years guarantee against the compressor. That the aforesaid air conditioner within a month from its purchase started giving trouble/problem to the complainant as its cooling was very much low and there was much noise while in operation. The complainant on detecting the abovesaid defects in the air conditioner immediately approached the op no.1 but the op no.1 simply put off the complainant by saying that as and when the authorized engineer of the company would visit, he will rectify the defect as the matter has already been reported to the company and also assured that if any manufacturing defect is found, the air conditioner will be replaced. The op no.1 with this buttering assurance put off the matter on his time to time visits and no engineer visited the premises of the complainant. Thereafter on regular visits and insistence of complainant, the op no.1 just to pacify the complainant sent its own mechanic who noticed the low cooling and noise in the air conditioner and he confirmed the manufacturing defect in the air conditioner. But the grievance of the complainant was not redressed by ops despite his several visits and despite visit of some respectable person with him and even the complainant lodged complaints at toll free number but of no avail. Ultimately, in the last week of November, 2015 the complainant again approached to op no.1 and requested for replacement of air conditioner but this time op no.1 rebuked the complainant for his regular visit. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. OP no.1 did not appear despite service and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. OP no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simple submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/ technical fault and has not placed on record any analysis test report. It is further submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per company policy. It is further submitted that the ops were and are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. It is also submitted that M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. has a system to lodge online complaint with the system of answering op. for each and every I.M.E.I/ Sr. no. but in the present complaint, as per limited details provided, no complaint has been found registered with the answering op in regards to unit of the complainant. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill Ex.C2. On the other hand, op no.2 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of warranty card Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the air conditioner in question from opposite party no.1 on 2.5.2015 and has alleged above said defects of low cooling and huge noise in the air conditioner after one month of its purchase and also alleged that above said defects were pointed out to the opposite party no.1 for several times but despite assurances given by op no.1 his grievance was not redressed. The opposite party no.1 did not bother to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. So we have no other option but to rely on the version of the complainant that defects developed in the air conditioner after a short period of its purchase and despite his several complaints, the air conditioner was not even inspected by the ops and even the same has not been checked by ops after long period after filing of present complaint. The op no.2 after appearance before this Forum could have inspected the air conditioner in question through its engineers but same has not been done. It is pertinent to mention here that on 1.6.2017 when the case was fixed for arguments, learned counsel for op no.2 has made a statement that service engineer of company will visit the premises of the complainant within two days and will submit his technical report on 7.6.2017 and the complainant was agreed with the said statement. Then on 8.6.2017, learned counsel for op no.2 alongwith Sh. Parul Sethi, proprietor of op no.2 made a statement that as per reports of Engineer Annexure A and B, defect has been noticed in three parts which are not in warranty but as a goodwill gesture in order to settle the matter, the company is ready to replace the defective parts without any charges at the premises of the complainant. But on 11.7.2017, learned counsel for op no.2 stated that parts could not be changed due to non availability of the same and therefore, op no.2 was directed to change the parts of air conditioner in question up to 25.7.2017, failing which a penalty of Rs.200/- per day will be leviable with effect from 26.7.2017 till compliance which will be payable to the complainant on weekly basis. It is pertinent to mention here that the engineer of company namely Sh. Ashish Kumar detected defects of blower, PCB and sensor defective in the air conditioner on 2.6.2017 as is evident from report Annexure A and an estimate of Rs.4478.66/- for replacement of above said parts including service charge and tax was prepared on 6.6.2017 vide report Annexure B.
7. On 28.7.2017, Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Service Engineer of op no.2 made a statement that as per order of this Forum, he alongwith helper Mukesh Kumar visited the house of complainant at 11.00 a.m. (on 28.7.2017 itself) and replaced the defective parts as mentioned in Annexure B without any cost and now air conditioner is working properly and now there is no defect of any kind in the air conditioner. Today, learned counsel for complainant has made a statement that service engineer of the company has replaced the defective parts free of costs and now air conditioner is working properly and for the satisfaction of complainant, the ops be directed to extend the warranty for six months.
8. Keeping in view the above said detailed position of the case in hand, as the defective parts have been replaced by the ops free of costs and the air conditioner is working properly as per admission on behalf of complainant, we do not deem it proper to direct the ops to extend warranty for any further period. However, as mentioned above the ops have failed to even inspect the air conditioner through expert engineer on various complaints lodged by complainant and grievance of the complainant has been redressed after such a long period, therefore, we found the ops deficient in service. The op no.2 is also liable to pay an amount of Rs.400/- to the complainant as per order dated 11.7.2017 as op no.2 was directed to change the defective parts of air conditioner up to 25.7.2017 but same have been replaced on 28.7.2017 i.e. after two days despite specific direction of penalty of Rs.200/- after 25.7.2017. Accordingly, the op no.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.400/- to the complainant for the above said lapse and both the ops are also jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.6000/- (Rs. Six thousand) as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.20/- per day as penalty to the complainant and complainant will be entitled to initiate proceedings under Sections 25/27 of the Act against the ops. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:1.8.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
