By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had purchased a Samsung refrigerator (Model No. RDSAMRS 55 K 5010 SL) from the first opposite party on 24/02/2018 for an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only). It is stated in the complaint that within oneyear from the date of purchase, defect was found in the product and the coolingeffect was gradually came down. Even though the complainant had contacted the first opposite party for curing the defect, the first opposite party evaded from his responsibility in the manoeuvre of then prevailed flood situation. Later, Covid -19 pandemic started and lock down was came into force. The opposite party was advised the complainant to wait for a suitable time to address the grievance. But on 03/02/2021 the refrigerator became completely damaged and halted its function. The complainant again contacted the first opposite party and consequently the complainant registered a complaint as registration No. 4329419919. It is stated by the complainant that a technician from the service centre came and inspected the refrigerator and taken subject product into service centre after bearing Rs. 1400/- as transportation cost by the complainant. The complainant averred that the subject product is still kept in the custody of service centre and a customer service record card dated 16/09/2021 was also issued to the complainant. Thereafter, the technician of service centre informed the complainant that the refrigerator is non –repairable, since the defect is not curable. It is also informed that the second opposite party is ready to take back the subject product after a refund of 35% of the actual price of the refrigerator. According to the complainant, the amount offered was meagre one. The complainant requested the opposite parties by reminding legal obligations of the opposite parties. The opposite parties replied to the complainant in an evasive manner. So the complainant approached the Commission to redress his grievance. It is contended by the complainant that the product of the opposite parties is suffered from manufacturing defect and the representation made at the time of purchase of the refrigerator became baseless and falsehood. The complainant alleged misleading advertisement of the product by the opposite parties. The opposite parties assured 10 years warranty to the product. So the complainant stated that the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant resulting mental agony and hardship to him. The complainant prayed for direction to the opposite party to refund Rs. 60,000/- as the cost of refrigerator and also to pay Rs. 1400/- as the transportation cost incurred to take the product to the service centre situated at Malappuram. The complainant claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. The complainant also claimed Rs. 25,000/- as the cost of the proceedings from opposite parties.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notices to the opposite parties. The first opposite party received notice on 12/02/2022, but not filed version within statutory period and hence set him as exparte. On 05/07/2022, the first opposite party filed interim application numbered as IA 482/2022 to set aside exparte order along with version. But the Commission dismissed the application and did not accept the version as there existed legal hurdles. The second opposite party filed version within the period of statutory time limit.
3. The second opposite party is the manufacturer of the subject refrigerator. In the version, the second opposite party denied the allegation raised in the complaint. It is stated that the opposite party is working under the provisions of Companies Act 1956. It is alleged that the complainant approached with unclean hands and has hidden facts of the case. It is further stated that the allegation of manufacturing defect cannot be determined on the simplicitor submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis report to confirm the same. The claim of compensation made by the complainant is baseless and not stated exact loss sustained to the complainant. The opposite party admitted the fact that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator for Rs. 60,000/- from the first opposite party. The second opposite party denied all allegations of manufacturing defect, irresponsible attitude to rectify the defect and sufferings of inconvenience and hardship. But the second opposite party admitted that a complaint was registered with service centre and a technician was inspected the refrigerator and same was taken to service centre. But the opposite party denied allegation of complete damage of the refrigerator. The opposite party stated that there was no act of cheating on the part of the second opposite party. But at the same time the opposite party admitted the contention of the complainant that the opposite party made an offer to provide depreciated refund of the invoice price and its refusal by the complainant. The averment of the complainant that the technician of service centre informed him that the refrigerator is non-repairable is admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party did not make any promise of paying compensation to the complainant, but at the same time offered to pay the depreciated refund to the enhanced rate of 50% to the complainant. The opposite party denied the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party contended that there was no mental agony or hardship to the complainant. The opposite party also stated that the complainant is not entitled for any monetary relief as prayed in the complaint. It is averred by the opposite party that due to internal leakage the product is in non reparable condition, so as per the warranty terms and depreciation table, the complainant was offered 56% depreciated refund since the product was used by the complainant for 3 years and 5 months. It is further stated in the version that the complainant is eligible to get only depreciated refund not full refund. The averments made by the complainant that the refrigerator became defective within one year and due to flood he could not report the complaint is not true because none of the service centre was closed due to flood. As per the terms of the warranty policy, only issue arising during the warranty period will be repaired free of costs and all repairs outside the warranty period will be repaired only on chargeable basis and if no repair is possible then depreciated refund will be processed. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
4. The complainant and the second opposite party filed affidavits and both parties also produced documents. The documents produced from the side of the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to Ext.A5 documents. Ext. A1 document is the bill dated 24/02/2018 for Rs. 60,000/- issued by the first opposite party in favour of the complainant showing the purchase of refrigerator RD SAMRS 55 K 5010 SL. Ext. A2 document is the customer Service Record Card dated 16/09/2021 issued by the service centre of the second opposite party. Ext. A3 document is the copy of notice dated 27/10/2021 sent to the opposite parties by the complainant. Ext. A4 document is the copy of reply notice dated 24/12/2021 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A5 document is the reply notice dated 02/12/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. The documents produced by the second opposite party are marked as Ext. B1 to B4 documents. Ext. B1 document is the power of attorney issued by the Samsung India Electronics private Limited in favour of Mr. Sandeep Sahijwani dated 01/01/2021. Ext. B2 document is the copy of acknowledgement of service request issued by the service centre of the second opposite party. Ext.B3 document is the copy of reply notice dated 02/12/2021 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant . Ext. B4 document is the copy of warranty card issued by the second opposite party to the complainant.
5. Heard both sides in detail. Perused affidavits and documents available for evaluation of evidence. The Commission finds the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant.
- Relief and cost.
6. Point No.1 and 2:-
The complainant averred that he purchased a refrigerator from the first opposite party, who was the dealer of second opposite party, the manufacturer. The complainant produced the bill issued by the first opposite party showing the price and date of purchase of the subject product and it is marked as Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document shows that the price of refrigerator as Rs. 60,000/-. The grievance of the complainant stated in the complaint and affidavit is that within one year from the date of purchase of the subject product became defective one as cooling effect was got down. Even though the complainant contacted the first opposite party for rectifying the defect, no action was taken by stating excuse of then prevailed situation of flood. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties continued their inaction on the basis of subsequent pandemic covid -19 situations. On 03/02/2021 the refrigerator became completely damaged and stopped the function. Finally a serviceman came and taken the subject product to service centre of second opposite party and informed that the product was non-reparable one. The complainant produced the customer service Record Card dated 16/09/2021 issued from the service centre and marked it as Ext. A2 document. Ext. A2 document shows that the subject product was defective as stated by the complainant. The copy of notice sent to the opposite parties by the complainant is marked as Ext. A3 document. The complainant produced reply notice sent by first opposite party and it is marked as Ext. A4 document. The reply notice sent by the second opposite party is produced and same is marked as Ext. A5 document. The second opposite party also produced copy of Ext.A5 document before the Commission and same is marked as Ext. B2 document. So the complainant pleaded for refund of Rs. 60,000/- from the opposite parties as the cost of defective refrigerator..
7. But the second opposite party vehemently opposed the argument of the complainant and contended that the relief cannot granted as prayed by the complainant. Being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 the second opposite party produced power of attorney showing the appointment of its General Manager as holder of power of attorney and it is marked as Ext. B1 document. The opposite party admitted the purchase of its product by the complainant as stated in the complaint. But the opposite party denied the allegation of manufacturing defect to the subject product. The opposite party also admitted that a complaint was registered with service centre and technicians inspected the subject product and same was taken into service centre. The opposite party produced the copy of acknowledgement of service request and same is marked as Ext. B2 document. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the subject product is non-reparable one. So the opposite party offered the complainant to provide depreciated refund of invoice price to the extend of 56%. But the complainant did not accept the offer made by the opposite party. It is stated in the version and affidavit of the opposite party that as per terms of warranty, the complainant is only eligible for depreciated warranty. The opposite party produced copy of warranty card and same is marked as Ext. B4 document.
8. Going through the evidence available before the Commission, it can be seen that, the defective product is kept in the custody of the service centre of the second opposite party. It is specifically and consistently alleged by the complainant that the defect was found within one year from the date of purchase. The reply notice to Ext. A3 document sent by the first opposite party is produced by the complainant and marked it as Ext.A4 document. Ext.A4 document clearly reveals that ten years warranty was provided to the subject product and the product became damaged within one year of time. The first opposite party also stated in the reply notice that a complaint with regard to defect of product was registered before the second opposite party by the first opposite party. So it can be find that the defect of refrigerator was noticed by the opposite parties within one year from the date of purchase. The pleading of the second opposite party that defect was found only after a long period cannot be considered as trustworthy. In this situation, the contention of the opposite party that the complainant deserve only 56% of depreciated refund since the product was used by the complainant for 3 years and 5 months is not substantiated by evidence. The complainant specifically contended manufacturing defect to the product and so the first opposite party is not responsible for the same. The Commission finds that the second opposite party committed deficiency in service even though information was received earlier with regard to the defect of the product. The second opposite party failed to attend the complaint in proper time. The Commission also finds that the complainant had to handle the defective refrigerator for a long time resulting sufferings of mental agony and hardship to him. The complainant is succeeded in proving the deficiency in service committed by the second opposite party. So the Commission allow the complainant in the following manner.
- The second opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 60,000/-(Rupees Sixty thousand only) to the complainant as the price of the subject refrigerator.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service committed by the second opposite party.
- The second opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The second opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum, from the date of order till its realisation.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN 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.A1to A5
Ext. A1 : Document is the bill dated 24/02/2018 for Rs. 60,000/- issued by the first
opposite party in favour of the complainant showing the purchase of
refrigerator RDSAM RS 55 K 5010SL.
Ext. A2 : Document is the customer Service Record Card dated 16/09/2021 issued
by the service centre of the second opposite party.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of notice dated 27/10/2021 sent to the opposite
parties by the complainant.
Ext. A4 : Document is the reply notice dated 24/12/2021 issued by the first opposite
party to the complainant.
Ext. A5: Document is the reply notice dated 02/12/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant.
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 : Document is the power of attorney issued by the Samsung India Electronics
Private Limited in favour of Mr. Sandeep Sahijwani dated 01/01/2021.
Ext. B2 : Document is the copy of acknowledgement of service request issued by
the service centre of the second opposite party.
Ext. B3 : Document is the copy of reply notice dated 2/12/2021 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant .
Ext. B4 : Document is the copy of warranty card issued by the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
