BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 227 of 2017                                                                         

                                                       Date of Institution         :    13.9.2017

                                                          Date of Decision   :    18.01.2018.

Yogesh (aged about 31 years) son of Sh. Harish Chander, resident of P-2/150, P.N.B. Street, Rori Bazaar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Delhi Electronics, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Authorized signatory.

2. Samsung Customer Care Service, Gali Sangam Palace Wali, Barnala Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor- Authorized signatory.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi- 110044, through its Managing Director/ Authorized signatory.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

          SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Dharmendra Chauhan,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party no.1 exparte.

Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased a refrigerator make Samsung model No.RT31GCPR1/CTL (Ref-Frust Free) from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.3949 dated 8.2.2013 for an amount of Rs.23,000/- and at that time op no.1 had given every type of assurance about the quality of the refrigerator and had given five years guarantee of the same. The op no.1 is the authorized dealer of Samsung company and op no.2 is the customer care service centre of Samsung company and op no.3 is the manufacturing company of Samsung home appliances. That after the purchase of that refrigerator, the complainant found that refrigerator in question did not work properly and there is also a serious defect in the compressor as well as motor of refrigerator and also defect in some other parts of the refrigerator upon which the complainant made complaint to the ops at toll free number of the company and the ops sent their mechanic at the premises of the complainant, who inspected about the problem occurred in the refrigerator but the refrigerator could not be repaired by him. Thereafter the complainant has made several complaints but the defect occurred in the refrigerator could not be removed. That the refrigerator in question is in the guarantee period but during the guarantee period neither the problems occurred in the above said refrigerator have been removed nor the said refrigerator has been replaced with new one as per terms and conditions of guarantee given by ops despite his several requests and serving of legal notice dated 14.7.2017. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product and 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. It is further submitted that complainant has concocted a false story just to grab unlawful benefit from answering ops. The complainant in regard to his complaint regarding the alleged unit approached the service center of answering op i.e. Platinum Services on the following dates i.e. 3.6.2017 vide call no.4237826799, 6.6.2017 vide call no.4238016066, 8.6.2017 vide call no.4238251414 and all the time reported some problems in his unit. The service engineer of the service center checked/ examined the unit and found that the PCB of the unit needs replacement ad as the PCB was DNA with the answering op, e-commercial solution was provided to the complainant i.e. the depreciated refund of the unit, but the complainant refused for the same and demanded replacement/ refund for his unit which is not permissible either in law or as per the warranty policy of the answering op. After that the complainant without any cause of action directly filed the complaint. The answering op provides one year comprehensive warranty on the unit and further four years warranty of the compressor of the unit and warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per the warranty policy and the warranty of the unit is subject to some conditions. All other contents of the complaint are denied.

3.                Opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C7, reply to legal notice Ex.C8, copy of aadhar card Ex.C9, copies of messages Ex.C10 to Ex.C19 and copy of warranty information Ex.C19. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager as Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 and reply to legal notice Ex.R3.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3 and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                It is proved fact on record that complainant had purchased the refrigerator from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.3949 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- on 8.2.2013 in his name with a warranty of five years. As per allegations of the complainant, the refrigerator of the complainant was not working properly and there was a serious defect in the compressor as well as in the motor of the refrigerator and time and again he had been approaching the ops for repair of his refrigerator and this fact also finds mention in the written statement as well as evidence of the ops.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that refrigerator cannot be repaired now and there is manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and this fact has not been denied by mechanic of the ops to whom he had been approaching time and again for repair of the refrigerator. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 has contended that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the condition of the refrigerator, the ops no.2 and 3 had offered to make refund of 10% of the cost of the refrigerator but however this offer appears to be not genuine. It will be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice if a reasonable amount is deducted on account of depreciation of the refrigerator though more than four years have passed qua the purchase of the refrigerator but complainant has not enjoyed the facility of the refrigerator to his satisfaction after spending such a huge amount on the purchase of the refrigerator.

8.                In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of 50% of the cost of the refrigerator (i.e.Rs.11500/- being 50% of Rs.23,000/- i.e. cost of the refrigerator) to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant will have to hand over the refrigerator in question to the ops against proper receipt. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:18.1.2018.                              Member                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.