By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant purchased a Sam sung refrigerator model RS 21HSTPN worth Rs.77,500/- from the first opposite party at Manjeri. But the first opposite party shop was closed at Manjeri and they are having a branch at Nilambur, made party in the complaint. The refrigerator was purchased on 28/12/2015 and it was functioned till 29/01/2020. But thereafter became defective. Thereafter there was no cooling effect and food articles were not able to keep in the refrigerator in effect. The refrigerator irreparably became defective.
2. Thereafter as per the information given by the first opposite party branch at Manjeri contacted the second opposite party and the second opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and examined the refrigerator and thereafter decided to repair the same. But the opposite party so far not turned up to repair the defective refrigerator. Subsequently the complainant contacted the first opposite party but there was no response at all. The complainant submit that the refrigerator has got 10 years warranty and so the opposite party is liable to rectify the defect of refrigerator. Though the complainant contacted several times there was no positive response from the side of opposite party. The opposite party so far not contacted the complainant and not rectified the defect. The complainant submitted that he could not keep medicines as well as food articles in the refrigerator and thereby caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts deficiency in service and so the prayer is to direct the opposite party to pay 1,00,000/- rupees as compensation and also to replace the defective refrigerator or refund the cost of Rs.77,500/- along with cost of the proceedings Rs.25,000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and they received the notice. The first and second opposite parties did not turn up and so set them exparte. The third opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed version.
4. The third opposite party contended that the complainant is baseless devoid of any merits and approached this Consumer Commission hiding the correct fact and with unclean hands. Hence the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
5. The Opposite party contended that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing / technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of the Commission and in the absence of technical report on record the complaint deserves dismissal. The submission of the opposite party is that the alleged defect cannot be determined on simpler submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same.
6. The complainant sought relief as compensation / damages without any manner demonstrating that any loss has impact been occasioned and in what manner computation of compensation claimed has been made.
7. The opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased refrigerator on 28/12/2015 for Rs.73,500/- from the dealer. But the opposite party denied that the unit was used by the complainant till 29/01/2020 and thereafter there was no cooling that the food item and medicine stored in the fridge was damaged that caused loss that during Ramzan season he could not use the fridge that further caused hardships, loss etc. The opposite party also denied that the complainant contacted the opposite party several times, but no reply was received from them and he was humiliated by the acts of the company, that without using the refrigerator the family caused loss and hardships, the mental pain suffered by the complainant were due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and this opposite party is responsible for all the loss of the complainant and the complaint is entitled to replace or refund its price along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.25,000/-.
8. The opposite party admitted that one technician visited the house of the complainant and checked the unit and decided to repair but denied that the same was not repaired and even after repeated demands and request the unit got not repaired etc.
9. The opposite party submitted that as per the records of the opposite party the complainant had purchased refrigerator and he used the unit for a continuous period of 4 years and on 02/03/2020 the complainant approached the service center with complaint of no cooling and the said complaint was duly registered vide job card and on that basis the service engineer inspected the unit but on inspection it was found that the complaint was of internal leakage which could not be repaired. The opposite party submitted that the situation was informed to the complainant and made him understood the policy matter regarding refund of depreciated refund of the unit in such cases that the unit is not repairable. The opposite party submit that initially the complainant was ready for the same but later requested for enhancement of refund amount. Ultimately the opposite party enhanced 50% of refund of the cost of unit but again the complainant continued bargaining for more amount and so the complaint was closed vide such remarks.
10. The opposite party submitted that the unit which cannot be repaired, in such cases as a matter of policy, the company is unable to refund full cost of the unit. But refund only such amount after considering depreciation applicable to the unit. The submission of the opposite party is that the present complaint, the complainant had used the unit for period of 4 years and hence deprecation of policy is most applicable to the said unit.
11. The opposite party content that they are not providing 10-year warranty to the product in question but the said warranty is only to compressor and not to any other part that clearly mentioned in the warranty terms given to the unit. In this complaint, defect is to condenser unit and not to compressor and so complainant cannot claim warranty benefit. So, the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant approached the commission with ulterior motive of getting illegal reliefs from the commission contending false allegations.
12. The opposite party submitted that the complaint reported by the complainant was duly attended but the complainant demanded unlawfully which is outside the scope of warranty terms which cannot accede. The submission of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and they are prepared to refund after considering depreciation of the unit and that was properly informed to the complainant through the e mail. The issue aroused in this complaint during the warranty period and the repairs will be done free of cost only issues arising during the warranty period and in this case depreciated refund policy is applicable. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss this complaint accepting the version of the opposite party.
13. The complainant and third opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is copy of invoice dated 28/12/2015. Ext.A2 is copy of photographs of the refrigerator. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is copy of power of attorney. Ext. B2 is copy of customer service record card. Ext. B3 is warranty card. Ext. B4 is copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
14. Heard complainant and third opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration: -
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
15. Point No.1
It is an admitted case that the complainant purchased refrigerator for Rs.77,500/- on 28/12/2015 from the opposite party No.1 and it was working till 29/01/2020. Thereafter the same became defective and there was no cooling effect and the food items and medicines were damaging due to the malfunctioning of the product. The case of the complainant is that there onwards the refrigerator is not working even though the defect was properly informed to the opposite parties there was no rectification of defect of the refrigerator. The people from the service centre that is service engineer inspected the unit and it was found the complaint of internal leakage which could not be repaired. The opposite party informed the complainant as a matter of policy, refund of amount after consideration of depreciation is the only option available in case which the unit is not repair. After negotiation the opposite party was prepared to refund 50% of the cost of the unit but the complainant was not amenable for the same.
15. The opposite party also contended that there is no 10-year warranty to the unit in question. But the warranty is only to compressor and no other part is given 10-year warranty. The defect is caused to the condenser unit and not to the compressor and so the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant cannot claimed warranty benefit.
16. The opposite party produced documents B1 to B4 in which B3 is the warranty card. Page No.4 of the warranty card explains various periods regarding the warranty about the different parts of the product. But the copy of photographs produced by the complainant marked as Ext. A2 shows that it has got 10-year warranty. The appearance of Ext. A2 document no doubt will make the consumer to believe the product has got 10-year warranty. It is the right of the consumer to avail proper and correct information regarding the product. In a case where in the different components of a product has got different period of warranty it will be proper on the side of manufacturer to make aware the entire warrantee period for the publicity for the assurance regarding warranty. Even though the Ext. B3 there is description for different periods regarding different components on warranty aspect. It is not proper to make advertisements that it has got 10-year warranty. The act of the opposite party making such misleading advertisement amounts unfair trade practice.
17. It can be seen that as a matter of policy the opposite party has agreed to refund half of the cost of the product to the complainant. But the complainant is not amenable for the same.
18. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has used the product for 5 years and it is not repairable also. On the same time the opposite party contended that the defect cannot be proved through simple submissions of the complainant but to be established through the expert evidence. But it is an admitted fact that the service engineer of the opposite party itself verified the defect of the product and declared that it is not repairable. So, we do not find in this complaint a further expert opinion to establish the defect of the product. It can be seen that the complainant pouched the product under the impression it has got 10-year warranty. So, he is entitled to use the product at least 10 years without any defect. It is to be noted that the warranty period of a product is not the life span of the product. A consumer is expected to use even after the expiry period for many years. So, the approach of the complainant not to accept the policy of the opposite party to refund half of the cost of the product is not bad one. Hence, we find that the product involved in the complaint is defective one and there is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we find the first point accordingly.
19. Point No.2
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the product which is supposed to have 10-year warranty became defective within 4 years of use. The opposite party has already admitted the complaint is being internal cannot be repaired. The complainant submits that due to defect of the refrigerator there was no cooling effect, he could not keep food as well as medicines in the refrigerator. It appears the grievance of the complaint is genuine one and so he is entitled to redress his grievance. The complainant is entitled for a defect free refrigerator of the same specification with warrantee or he is entitled to cost of the product as per Ex. A1. The complainant is also entitled for a reasonable amount of compensation Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
20. In the light of above facts and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows: -
1) The opposite parties are directed to replace a defect free refrigerator with the same specifications of Ext. A1 or refund the cost of Rs.77,500/- to the complainant.
2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
3) The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party is directed comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation and cost will carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Dated this 15th day of September, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2
Ext.A1: Copy of invoice dated 28/12/2015.
Ext.A2: Copy of photographs of the refrigerator
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B4
Ext.B1: Copy of power of attorney.
Ext.B2: Copy of customer service record card.
Ext.B3: Warranty card.
Ext.B4: Copy of letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
