DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 81/2015
Date of Institution : 30.04.2015
Date of Decision : 23.10.2015
Anil Bharti aged about 34 years, son of Sh. Hargopal resident of Street No. 2, Near Court Complex, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Goyal Sales, Hanidiaya Bazar, Near S.S.D. Sabha Market, Barnala, Authorized Dealer of Samsung, through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.
Samsung World Wide, India Office Address, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower 'C', Vipul techsquare, Old Golf Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Goel counsel for the complainant.
Sh. R.K. Jain counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
Sh. A.S.Sandhu counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Anil Bharti has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against the Goyal Sales through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor (hereinafter called as the opposite party No. 1) and Samsung Wold Wide through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory (hereinafter called as the opposite party No. 2).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Refrigerator RT 33 SA bearing S. No. 030H4PAF200671 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 from the opposite party No. 1 on 3.5.2014 for Rs. 27,000/- vide invoice No. 42352 for his domestic use. It is averred that at the time of purchasing the said Refrigerator, the opposite parties gave warranty of one year to the complainant against any fault and the user's manual book of opposite party No. 2 was also given.
3. It is further averred that about three months back suddenly the Refrigerator stopped cooling and door of the Refrigerator was not properly closed and due to this reason the articles, which were kept in the Refrigerator were got stunk. It is further averred that this is a manufacturing defect and in this regard a complaint No. 4188142992 dated 15.1.2015 was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party No. 2. Then an employee from the opposite party No. 2 along with opposite party No. 1 visited to check the same 2-3 times and he filled the gas and replaced some material from the Refrigerator with new one, thus, the Refrigerator repaired. But again on 28.4.2015 the Refrigerator again stopped doing cooling and a complaint No. 4193448547 dated 29.4.2015 was lodged by the complainant with the opposite party No. 2 and also reported to the opposite party No. 1. However, no person/employee came from the opposite parties to repair the same. Thereafter, the complainant visited the showroom of opposite party No. 1 for doing repair the same, but they refused to do so. It is further averred that the temperature in Refrigerator is high and it is very difficult for the complainant and for his family members. Thus, it is alleged that it is a malpractice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To change the Refrigerator with new one or to refund Rs. 27,000/- for the same.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite part No.1 appeared and filed separate written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, locus-standi etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased one Refrigerator after evaluating the product and this product was sold after telling the complainant that service of the Refrigerator will be provided by the Company i.e. Samsung through their service network. It is further submitted that the complainant after lodging the complaint with the opposite party No. 2 approached the opposite party No. 1 and they as a gesture of goodwill got the defect rectified after perusing the same with the opposite party No. 2. After the repair the complainant never reported any problem regarding the performance of the Refrigerator. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 is only a sale point of various manufacturers and the replacement and refunds are to be decided by the service department of the manufacturers. The complainant was well aware of this procedure and he had already availed the services of the service department of opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 1 has no role for the same. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 2 has also filed a separate written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of concealment of material facts, jurisdiction, misuse of process of law etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the complaint was lodged on 29.4.2015 by the complainant with them and the same was also attended by the Service Engineer. The door gas kit of the Refrigerator was damaged, which was duly replaced and the Refrigerator was made OK to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, the opposite party No. 2 has denied that the complainant visited the showroom of opposite party No. 1 many times and they did not attend him. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 sought direction from this Forum through this reply to inspect the Refrigerator in question so that exact factual position be brought before this Forum.
6. It is further submitted that the relief claimed by the complainant for replacement or refund cannot be granted as the complainant failed to lead any expert evidence in this regard. They have also denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 3.5.2014 and closed the evidence.
8. In order to rebut the case of complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence an affidavit of Ramesh Kumar as Ex.O.P1/1 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence an affidavit of Sunil Bhargava as Ex.O.P-2/2 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the evidence tendered by the parties.
10. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on file his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. He has specifically stated that his Refrigerator has a manufacturing defect and the opposite parties did not attend his complaint dated 29.4.2015 despite visiting the opposite parties many times for doing the needful.
11. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 from whom the said Refrigerator was purchased has stated in his affidavit Ex.O.P-1/1 that they are only a sale point and the replacement/refunds are to be decided by the service department of the manufacturer (the opposite party No. 2). Apart from affidavit of the opposite party No. 1, the manufacturer (the opposite party No. 2) in the affidavit Ex.O.P-2/2 of General Manager Mr. Sunil Bhargava has stated that the warranty period is one year and the complaint was duly attended by the Service Engineer and the problem was duly redressed to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, the opposite party No. 2 in their affidavit in Para 15 has specifically stated that permission may be granted to them to inspect the Refrigerator in question so that the exact factual position be brought before this Forum. But it is specifically stated by them that since there is no expert report, therefore the claim for replacement/refund of the price cannot be allowed.
12. During arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also made no objection if the request as mentioned in the written version of the opposite party No. 2 is allowed.
13. Admittedly, there is no expert evidence or report of the Service Engineer on the file to indicate the exact fault in the Refrigerator. The opposite party No. 2 had desired to inspect the Refrigerator in question for determing the exact factual position.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction that the opposite party No. 2 should send some Service Engineer to inspect the Refrigerator in question and if there is a manufacturing defect then the Refrigerator may be replaced with a new one or in case the defect is repairable then the opposite party No. 2 is directed to repair the same. There is no order as to costs. This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of October, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
