DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/349 of 17/12/2014

Decided on 27/04/2015

Narinderjit Singh, aged about 61 son of S. Inder Singh, resident of H. no.152. Jandu Di Bagichi, Ragho Majra, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Jolly Sales Corporation, 1, Lower Mall, Ragho Majra, Opposite Budha Dal Public School Patiala, authorized dealer for Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Electronics Goods Company.

2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase-II, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.

3. Samsung Authorized Service Centre, M/s B. S. Electronics Shop no.2- 3, 1 Rajbaha Road, Patiala, inside Gill Clinical Laboratory, Patiala.

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. G. S. Bhatia Advocate.

For Opposite party no.2 & 3 : Sh. J. S. Sandhu Advocate.

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased one Refrigerator from Op no.1 vide invoice no.102 for an amount of Rs.19800/- on 23/04/2014. It is averred that at the time of selling the product, OP gave one year warranty against any defect in the product. It is further averred by the complainant that the OP sold defective product to the complainant as there were major cracks in the said Refrigerator and when the complainant made a complaint to the OPs., they used to say that their mechanic will come to inspect the refrigerator but nobody turned up to inspect the same.

2. Ultimately, the complainant contacted the service centre i.e. OP no.3 regarding the cracks in the refrigerator but the service incharge Mr. Aman Arora told the complainant that the cracks in the said refrigerator were due to mishandling. The complainant requested the OPs to replace the refrigerator with a new one but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant suffered physically as well as mentally due to the cracks appearing in the refrigerator and finally he approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.2 & 3 only, who appeared through counsel and filed their joint reply to the complaint. In their written statement, it is alleged that the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 23/4/2014 and the same was duly installed in his house and demo about its working was explained to the complainant and his family. The complainant was fully satisfied with the working & performance of the refrigerator at the time of installation. On 11/10/2014, the complainant lodged a complaint regarding cracks in the liner of the refrigerator. Accordingly, a service engineer visited the house of the complainant and found that there was crack in the liner of the refrigerator which was not due to wear and tear but due to some physical force or mishandling. As the damage was due to some physical force the repair was to be on chargeable basis, but the complainant refused to get the refrigerator repaired. As such no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of the OPs. After denying all other allegations going against the OPs, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand on behalf of OPs, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Shriniwas Joshi, Sr. Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and closed the evidence.

5. Parties filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence placed on record.

6. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant had purchased the refrigerator make Samsung for Rs.19800/- on 23/04/2014 from OP no.1. Ex.C-2 is the photograph taken from the refrigerator with regard to the 10 years warranty for the compressor. It is the plea taken up by the complainant that he was provided a warranty of one year by Op no.1 and assured that in case of any defect, the same will be set right and in case of any major defect, the refrigerator will be replaced with new one.

7. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of purchasing of the refrigerator there were major cracks to the knowledge of the OP but the OP sold the same with malafide intention having kept the complainant in dark. After some time of the purchase of the refrigerator the complainant noticed huge crack in the refrigerator. It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that refrigerator has not been functioning properly. Whenever the complainant made a complaint about the same to the OPs, it was assured that mechanic will inspect the refrigerator and remove the defect if any, found in the same but nobody turned up to check the same. The complainant approached the Ops and disclosed that refrigerator was not working properly. However the OPs stated that there was no defect in the refrigerator as the same had been checked by the mechanic and the same was found to be OK.

8. As regards the plea of the complainant that there were cracks in the refrigerator in the linear of the same, it may be noted that refrigerator was purchased by the complainant on 23/04/2014 but he approached the forum through the present complaint on 17/12/2014 i.e. after lapse of eight months. It can not be believed that there being big crack in the linear of the refrigerator at the time of the purchasing of the same, the same could not be noticed by the complainant or the members of the family of the complainant. On perusal of the photograph Ex.C-5 which pertains to the internal cabinet and door of the refrigerator, one fails to notice any crack. Apparently the photograph Ex.C-4 showing horizontal crack in the product has not been connected with the refrigerator in question because no affidavit of the person who had taken the photographs of the refrigerator has been tendered in evidence to show that same pertains to the refrigerator in question. In any case the cracks appearing in Ex.C-4 being glaring , it could not escape the notice of any person and therefore, it would appear that same did not exist at the time of purchase of the refrigerator and certainly the same are the result of mis-handling of the same, as per the plea taken up by the OPs.

9. It is not the plea taken up by the complainant that any warranty was provided by the manufacturer of the refrigerator regarding any defect occurring in the plastic part of the refrigerator. The complainant was supposed to produce the warranty card. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that refrigerators are not provided with any warranty in respect of the plastic parts.

10. Since as per the plea taken up by the OPs cracks, if any, in the refrigerator are the result of wear and tear/ mis-handling and therefore, the ops are not under any obligation to repair the same without payment of charge. OP no.3 in its letter dt. 25/11/2014 Ex.C-7 written to the complainant informed him that the cracks in the product were the result of mis-handling . However they offered to support the same by applying protector tape which will further prevent/ protect the cracks and they sought the opinion of the complainant for getting the job done but it appears that complainant was not interested to get the said job done and as he was adamant in getting the refrigerator replaced which was not possible simply because of the lack of the provisions made in the warranty. That being so we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced

Dated: 27/04/2015.

Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

Member President Member