Naveen Puri, President;

1        The complainant Pritpal Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Harjit Singh & Co. & others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties with further prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace AC or refund the total amount besides this the complainant requests for damages and compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that on 15.8.2015 the complainant had purchased one Samsung Inverter AC, Colour white, bearing its model NO. AR18JV5HATON having capacity 5000W from the opposite party Samsung Company through its representative Harjit Singh & Co. running Samsung smart Plaza near Mangal Bakery, Adda Bazar Tarn Taran which is in one warranty period up to 14.8.2016. The inverter AC has a full unit warranty for a period of one year. Its compressor has a warranty of 10 years and condenser has a warranty of 5 years. Company is offering free 3 regular services within a one year of warranty period. On 15.8.2015 the AC was delivered to the complainant and a receipt bearing No. 3124 for the payment of Rs. 51,000/- was given by opposite party. The second regular service of the inverter AC was claimed in 2^nd week of July 2016 after logging the request by the complainant. The service was done by the authorized service person. At the time when service man was doing the service the complainant felt that something was broken in the inner unit of the AC. The complainant asked that at that time that what happened but the service man said to the complainant nothing to worry. He said that it is minor problem and often happens during service. On the same night, after the service it stars to drain water from the inner nit of the AC through frount display. The complainant immediately brought this problem in the kind notice of service man and he assured the complainant that everything will be all right after passage of time. As the problem remain as it is. The complainant lodged a complaint at midnight of 14 July regarding this issue after observing it for week and more. Then on 15 July another service engineer of company visited the site to check the problem and apprised the complainant that some part of the inner unit has broken which is causing the water drainage from its frount display. The complainant told him that the problem arose after the engineer had performed the scheduled regular service and due to his negligence. The service engineer assured the complainant that the fault will be rectified soon by the company within two or three days. After waiting for period week and more as no response came from the opposite party regarding the issues, the complainant again lodged the complaint with the service center No. 1800-3000-8282 with the reference No. 8477139265 dated 21.7.2016 given to the complainant and the complainant repeated it on 22 and 23 July 2016 respectively. The complainant has received a text, message from the company on his mobile that his complaint was cancelled due to the overestimate. The complainant very shocked by this poor display of services by the opposite party as the product was in full warranty period. The fault was occurred due to manhandling of the engineer during the service. The complainant brought the whole incident to the notice of dealer Harjit Singh and Co. and he assured the complainant that he would request to the company for his side to resolve the issue on priority basis. But till date nothing conclusive has happened. On 7.8.2016 the complainant again registered the complaint on the online portal of the company regarding the issue. But the company has registered his request with the reference No. 4219177626 dated 8.8.2016 for the service but till date no action was taken. Hence complaint was filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. The Opposite Party No. 1 appeared and filed written version and denied the complaint for want of knowledge and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4        The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the true and correct facts from this Forum and has not come before this forum with clean hands. The AC in question was found to physically damaged as the indoor body was found broken due to which there was water leakage in the indoor unit of the AC when service engineer last visited the premises of complainant on the complaint lodged by the complainant on 21.7.2016 and thoroughly checked the AC in question. Due to physical damage caused to the product it was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis. The estimate of repair was given but complainant refused to get the product rectified on chargeable basis. The complainant has not sought the permission of this Hon’ble Forum under section 11(2) (b) of Consumer Protection 1986 before instituting the present complaint against the opposite party No. 2. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. No cause of action has arisen in favour of complainant and against the opposite party No. 2 to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has never denied after sales services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant on chargeable basis. There is no inherent defect in the AC nor there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2.  The warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions duly mentioned in the warranty card issued at the time of purchase. The service engineer from the service center of opposite party No. 2 has always attended the complaint lodged by complainant but the problem of water leakage is due to physical damage caused to the internal body of the AC.  The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement or refund of price of AC alongwith compensation and damages. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. The complainant claims the said AC to be suffering from DEFECTS; therefore, it is the legal duty, under the discharge of burden, upon the complainant to establish the same by technical expert report but no such, report has been adduced by the complainant till date before this Forum, hence in the absence of any such technical expert report the complaint of the complainant cannot be decided as per the provisions of C.P. Act 1986. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant has intentionally not produced the warranty card supplied with the product at the time of sale. If the complainant is not in possession of signed warranty card then he is not entitled to claim any benefits of warranty.  The opposite party No.2 has denied the other allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5        The opposite party No.3 has duly served but the opposite party No. 3 did not appear and consequently, the opposite party No. 3 as proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.10.2016.

6        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in to evidence his affidavits Ex. C-1, C-2, affidavit of Sandeep Singh Ex. C-3 alongwith documents  Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence and thereafter, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex. OP2/1, alongwith document Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

7        We have also carefully perused and intently considered all the documents/ evidence produced on records of the current proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while (at the same time) taking requisite judicial-notice of non-submission of some documents seemingly vital to the instant adjudication. We find that the present dispute/complaint has arisen as a result of the alleged mal-functioning of the expensive OP2 Samsung Make Inverter Air Conditioner purchased from the OP1 Vendor and serviced/ repaired to set it right by the OP3 Samsung Service Centre at the repeated complainant-calls. However, the recurrent/ continuing defunct/mal-performance of the Air-Conditioner (in question) prompted the present complaint praying for the necessary relief by way of replacement/ refund and statutory cost/ compensation etc.

8        The OP 1 vendor has denied his role in repairs/ replacement/ refund of the sold AC Set and has specifically held it the responsibility/ liability of the OP manufacturers/ service centre. Further, the other opposite parties OP2 Manufacturers & OP3 Service Centre have alleged ‘exclusion’ of physical damage to the AC from the applicable warranty policy sans any specific proof of ‘damage’ at the complainant’s end. We further find that the present complainant has not produced any expert opinion/ job card and/ or any other cogent evidence of the AC’s manufacturing defect/ dysfunction/ service repairs at the OP2/ OP3 Service Station and has even failed to produce the defunct AC at the Service Centre during the present proceedings for a purposeful examination by the OP2/ OP3 expert. However, the present complainant has proved through deposition(s) Ex.C1, Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 & documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 that somewhat prove the complaint-contented allegations of ‘dysfunction’ etc along with the extended ‘warranty’ of the sold product i.e., the Inverter AC, in question.

 9       We find further that the OP1 vendor vides its written reply (duly supported by the affidavit Ex.OP-1/1) has pleaded that ‘Repairs, Replacement and Refund’ of the Samsung Make Products (sold at his shop) has been the responsibility/ liability of the OP2/ OP3 and as such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed, at least, against them. Moreover, the complainant did not intimate them (the OP1 vendor) of the dysfunction/ defunctness of the sold AC Inverter. We are not prepared to accept this arbitrary plea of the OP1 and hold him jointly, severally and co-extensively responsible for an efficient and courteous after sales service including replacement/ refund etc along with the other opposite parties. We find that the complainant could not enjoy the full benefits of his Samsung Make expensive AC Set purchased from the OP1 and in spite of the city-presence & city-representation of the OP2/ OP3 who of course have presently offered for a free examination of the same and a warranty-eligible free repairs etc.

10      In the light of all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint can be best disposed of by directing the OP2/OP3 Service Centre/ Manufacturers to conduct a thorough examination of the AC Inverter Set in question followed by the free within-warranty repairs/ part-replacement(s) etc. in case the complainant opts for the same (as per his convenience) at any of the titled opposite parties’ place of business within 15 working days of these orders and to deliver back the same to him in perfect working order within the next 7(Seven) working days along with a certificate of satisfactory working besides to pay him Rs 10,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actual payment. However, in case the opposite parties find the AC Inverter to be beyond repairs, the same shall be replaced and/or its cost be refunded alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of purchase till actual payment .

          Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.