Order-9.
Date-17/08/2015.
Complainant Lata Saha by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one micro oven on 18.10.2013 on payment of Rs. 12,200/-, Model #CE104VD/XTL, Sl. No. J68T7WED800066H, Bill No. DIDC/8907 from Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. But on the date of delivery on 23.10.2013 Demo has been given from service man from the company after a few days it was not working properly like it was not roasting and after continuous 15 minutes it stopped and again started on the next day.
On 02.01.2014 she made a complaint to which they responded over the phone and asked the complainant to put a cup of water and check whether it is warming or not, if yes then it is alright. After some days when he tried cooking, short circuit took place and his son was alone at home, then she managed the situation. After a few days 15 ampire socket got burned and the matter was reported to the dealer and they asked to take it by Samsung Micro Oven. Again on 27.07.2014 service man came and after inspection told that some of the parts needed to be replaced and 15 days passed but there was no response from the service center.
Again on 13.08.2014 complainant asked the service center to check it but there was no response and they provided no company man for repairing and in fact the micro oven is unable to work and it is unfit for service. Again complainant made complaint, but no service was given. So, she was frustrated. Thereafter on 13.10.2014 she switched on the plug but surprisingly found that the fire broke on the whole touch pad. So, she went to the Head Office of the Samsung at Lee Road and there Mr. Amit Ghosh said that they are unable to receive the goods, so, he referred it to the ASM – Mr. Bikramjit whom complainant told the entire story and claimed for refund of money and in reply Mr. Bikramjit stated that it is only being done from Delhi office and he assured to send Delhi office and he sent a person towards his place to collect a colour photo copy of her bill and Pan card and a cancelled cheque for the procedure of the refunding of the money.
On 2nd and 3rd of November, 2014 Mrs. Sabnam made a call from Delhi and told her that they would repair the product and no replace or refund would be done. Then no one cared to get in touch with her. So, complainant contacted Mr. Bikramjit who was looking after her matter and he answered back that he was no more handling her case and he was unable to say anything. Therefore complainant went to the service center and came to know that the present condition of capacitor was defective and it is needed to be changed and thereafter if required the transformer needed to be changed as well and replacement and refund of money was out of company policy.
4 months passed since she submitted a registered complaint asking for refund of money from Samsung India or complainant would be forced to take the matter to the Consumer Court and since then there had been no communication from Samsung for which complainant was compelled to file this complaint before this Forum for redressal.
Fact remains that complainant sent notices of this case through this Forum, but notices were duly served upon the ops that is Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 20.06.2015 and the Samsung India Company on 22.06.2015. But both of that ops did not care to contest this case, though they got notices of this complaint. So, the case is taken up for exparte hearing.
Decision with reasons
On careful consideration of the complaint including the materials on record, receipt of purchase of the said micro oven, it is found that complainant purchased the same no doubt vide receipt no. DC-8188 dated 18.10.2013 but issued by Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and from the said receipt, it is found that complainant paid Rs. 12,200/- no doubt and after purchase, complainant made one after another complaint to the op nos. 1 & 2 on 23.10.2013, 02.01.2014, 22.07.2014, 13.08.2014, 06.09.2014 and 12.11.2014. Thereafter Sabnam Roy on behalf of the company on 05.12.2014 in writing reported that capacitor defective and capacitor is required to be changed and if transformer is found defective that shall be changed to replace and refund is not applicable and fact remains that on 13.10.2014 it was finally repaired. But ultimately further complication and defect were detected and Sabnam Roy on 05.12.2014 found that capacitor was defective and capacitor is required to be changed. But they submitted that the replace or refund is out of policy of the company.
Considering those documents, it is clear that just after purchase, complainant faced problem and in fact one after another defect was found, on 2 occasions same was repaired. But subsequently similar defect was detected by Sabnam Roy on behalf of op no.2 and he submitted in writing that capacitor defective and it must be changed and at the same time transformer may be changed. But they refused to replace or refund the amount and submitted it in writing on 05.12.2014.
So, from the said report, it is clear that it is a defective one as because the said item which was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of his son, did not give any help and practically it is proved that it is defective one. But ops company refused to refund the entire amount or replace the same and considering that fact, it is clear that the present item micro over was defective since its purchase for which one after another defect was found and twice it was repaired and in so many occasions against report no service was given but ops did not replace which proves from the fact that even after filing of the complaint, they did not turn up and also considering the report of Sabnam Roy op no.2, it is clear that complainant again and again lodged complaint but ops did not respond, only on 2 occasions they repaired and on 3rd occasion expressed that there was some defects which must be changed. But that was reported to the op no.2, op no.2’s engineers reported it to Delhi office but they did not take any step. But our question is that what is the necessity to purchase the micro oven, if at the time of use if it does not give proper service and complainant as mother with high hope purchased it to give food to her son at an early hour for school, but that failed, even after purchase of a micro oven from Samsung India company. If by purchasing a micro oven from Samsung India company, complainant is being harassed by the ops for long two years,then what is the necessity to purchase brand article. Truth is that it was purchased on 18.10.2013. But till today it has not been used properly.
Most interesting factor is that at the time of purchase warranty card was also not handed over to the complainant but it was kept with the op no.1 and considering that act of the ops, we are convinced to hold that no doubt seller and manufacturer company did not give proper service to the complainant even after existence of warranty and warranty is admitted by the ops representative Sabnam Roy, but she refused to replace or refund the price to the complainant and also did not make it fit for using without any interruption. So, the very act on the part of the ops is no doubt deceitful manner of trade.
Most interesting factor is that complainant paid Rs. 12,200/- on 18.10.2013 for purchasing that micro oven, micro oven was installed on 23.10.2013 and since then complainant suffered month after month, days after days and failed to use it and it is just lying as rejected item in her house. When there was warranty, it was the duty on the part of the ops to give or to render proper service but that has not been done willingly and in fact fully knowing well that the said item was defective and it is not at all marketable it was sold and it is the business of Khosla Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and op no.1 company is known for selling defective goods for which many cases are being filed against them.
At the same time Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. a renowned company as per warranty clause did not render service, did not replace defective items after finding that fault. Then it is proved that op as seller sold a defect goods to the complainant and against warranty they did not render proper service for which no doubt complainant has suffered much mentally and also physically and further lost huge amount and in fact it has not been enjoyed now as a damaged micro oven of Samsung India Pvt. Ltd.
Considering the above material facts and unchallenged testimony of the complainant including the documents issued by the ops, we are convinced to hold that ops did not give proper service and harassed the complainant in such a manner and also for selling defect item (micro oven) to the complainant within the full knowledge of the op even after existence of warranty for which the complaint succeeds against the ops.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the op nos. 1 & 2 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- each.
Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund the entire price amount of the said micro oven i.e. Rs. 12,200/- and also to pay compensation of Rs. 6,000/- each to the complainant for the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 for not replacing the said micro oven or to refund the entire amount within a short time even after deduction of several type of defects by the service center of the op no.1.
Ops jointly and severally shall have to pay their respective decretal amount to this Forum within one month from the date of this order failing which penal damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day shall be assessed till full requirement of the decretal amount and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Even if it is found that ops are reluctant to comply the order, in that case, ops shall be prosecuted u/s 25/27 of C/\.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed against that.
