Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/39/2016

Y.Ravikumar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

V.Sudhakar

21 Jan 2017

ORDER

        

 

                                                                                                                                                           Filing Date:-12-04-2016                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:  21-01-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT:- Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                               Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

                         SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.39/2016

Between

Y. Ravi Kumar Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 39 years,

Resident of D.No.20/05/225A,

Sanjay Gandhi Colony,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                               … Complainant

 

And

The Managing Director,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt, Ltd.,

A-28, Ground Floor,

Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

NEW DELHI-110019.                                                                 … Opposite party

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.01.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.V.Sudhakar, counsel for the complainant and     Sri.A.Suresh, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the physical strain, mental agony and also financial loss suffered by the complainant, and to replace the product of Air Conditioner which is having a manufacturing defect and to pay costs of the complaint.

         2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant submits that, the opposite party is the manufactured company and sell their products through distributors by advertise their products as they are best endeavor having with impeccable product experience and their products pass through rigorous quality checks which are globally recognized and they stands for the best quality and service of the products. Basing on their promise the complainant purchased the Air Conditioner of SAMSUNG, MODEL No- AR185PBB, Serial No: 009PPDC3200072Y at S.V.Digital show room, Tirupati on paying of Rs.47,000/- towards cost of the product vide invoice no. 956, dt: 30.03.2012. The complainant further submits that this product worked properly for one year and also the general service was authorized service personnel done by as per the request of the complainant. After one month of the general service the said Air Conditioner starts to work 10-15 minutes and thereafter suddenly the Air Conditioner stops and room temperature will not become cool. Hence he approached customer care i.e. Arctic Agencies, Samsung Authorized A/C service centre, Tirupati. The authorized service persons attended for repair on 14.06.2013 and replace the spare parts. 1) Indoor PCB for Samsung Invertor AC, 2) Out Door PCB AC and collected Rs.5750/- including service charges. Again after few days of repair the problem was repeated again he approached the service centre and they made repair on 12.12.2013 and replace some spare parts and charged Rs.6000/- for the replacement of the spare parts and repair charges. Later it was worked properly for few days again the same problem was repeated and he made several complaints to the customer care. At last the Samsung Authorized Service Centre member attended for the service on 13.04.2015 and charged the bill for Rs.7443/- for the replacement of some spare parts and also for the gas filling charges and service charges. Again the same problem was repeated and again they attended for service and replace the CENSORS but, the said problem was not rectified and the same problem was runs. Hence the complainant made several complaints to the customer care through  emails, but they gave several offers on replacement of the parts i.e. with discount of out of 25% on costs of the spare parts but the executed staff of the customer care not bothered about the grievances of the customer and since three years the complainant made huge expenditure for the replacement of the spare parts and even now the problem repeats continuously and the product itself is having the manufacturing defect. Hence he gave a legal notice to the opposite party, after receipt of the said notice the opposite party failed to issue any reply. Hence the complainant submits that the service personnel attended several times to repair the Air Conditioner and they charged nearly 19,000/- towards the repair charges and replacement of the spare parts. But still the problem was not rectified and also the complainant nearly spent Rs.66,000/- towards the purchase of the Air Conditioner and also for repairing charges but , the purpose of the Air Conditioner is not served. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.    

        3. The opposite party came in to appearance and filed their written version and admitted, the sale of the Air Conditioner to the complainant on 30.03.2012 and further stated that they are the leading manufacturers of electronic products and also submitted their products are of the highest quality and they will never sell any product which is defective in nature including manufacturing defect and poor workmanship. The opposite party further contended that, as per the conditions of the company the warranty on all the parts except the compressor is for one year and for compressor it is for five years. According to the complainant the product worked well during the warranty period i.e. for one year and also they have done the service at free of cost and attended for the service promptly as per the company policy. The opposite party further contended that the complainant reported the complaint on 14.06.2013 which was attended on 19.06.2013 with a complaint of “no cooling” and the PCB was changed, as on the date the warranty period was expired except for the compressor. Hence they have done on chargeable basis and the appropriate amount was charged.  Again on 04.12.2013 once again the complainant gave a complaint which is only a general servicing and the unit was working in good condition. Again the opposite party attended on 06.03.2014 for the complaint and replaced the display on payment basis. Once again another complaint was logged and they attended for service on 01.07.2015 but they could not repaired as the estimate of charges Rs.3,300/- given by the servicing centre is not accepted by the complainant. Hence if there are any repairs beyond warranty period can be done only on payment basis and therefore the complainant cannot complain about the receipt of charges by their service person for doing service.

         4. The opposite party further submits that the Air Conditioner should be periodically used but and the complainant used only in summer and rest of the time to be kept idle as it could develop technical problems as it is a common with all the electronic and electrical items. Hence the quality of the product is good and there is no manufacturing defect because the said unit was in good working condition for more than one year. In fact this opposite party in view of the customer friendly in nature was ready to repair at 50% cost as a good will gesture but the complainant did not accepted for their offer and expected free of cost of repair which is not permissible as per the company policy. Hence there is no manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service and further the opposite party stated that the complainant paid for the spare parts and service charges and he is well aware that the warranty period was expired and he has to pay for servicing and spare parts. Hence they have attended for service promptly and there is no manufacturing defect nor deficiency in service on part of them. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

         5.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of him. On behalf of the opposite party one Anindya Bose, S/o. Asis Kumar Bose, Deputy General Manager filed his evidence on affidavit and there is no documents were marked on behalf of him. Both parties are filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        6.  Now the points for consideration are:             

             (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the  opposite party?

             (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

             (iii) To what Relief?

         7. Point No:-(i).  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the air conditioner by the complainant on 30.03.2012 from the opposite party dealer i.e. Ex:A1 and the same was admitted by the opposite party. The main contention of the complainant is after one year of the purchase the general service was made by the Arctic agency, Samsung authorized service centre as per the request of the complainant through customer care. After one month of the general service, the said air conditioner gave trouble of “no cooling” hence he informed customer care and the authorized service centre Arctic agencies, Tirupati attended for the service on 14.06.2013 and replaced spare parts under Ex:A2 i.e. 1) Indoor PCB for Samsung inverter Air Condition 2) Outdoor PCB for Air Condition 3) Servicing charges and he paid Rs.5,750/- for the spare parts including service charges. The complainant further submits after few months the same problem raised and again the service people attended for service and replaced the spare parts on 12.12.2013 under Ex:A3 and charged Rs.6,000/- and replaced the parts. Again the same problem raised and again the service persons of the opposite party replaced the parts on 13.04.2015 under Ex:A4 and charged Rs.7,443/- and gas was refilled and also replaced the compressor. The complainant submits that there after same problem was raised and again he made a complaint through mail but the reply was given by the Samsung Company on 19.03.2015 under Ex:A5, giving an offer of Rs.25% discount for  the cost of the replacement of the product for Rs.9,436/- and for effecting the repairs of the air conditioner. The complainant requested to replace the product as the air conditioner is not working properly several times the same problem was not raised cooling  repeatedly. But they never accepted the request of the complainant and more over they gave special offers of discount under Ex:A6 and A7 as the complainant spent nearly Rs.19,193/- for the replacement of the spare parts and for the cost of the product is Rs.47,000/- totally he spent Rs. 61,193/-. As the complainant asserted that the air conditioner is having inherent manufacturing defect even after the repair it gives trouble and the same defect is persisted and increased day by day. Even now the air conditioner is in the same condition and he has deprived using of the air conditioner.

         8. The opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased the air conditioner on 30.03.2012 and also stated that the said air conditioner was worked well during warranty period of one year and they attended for general servicing at free of cost and  attended for the repairs promptly as per the company policy and also stated that ,as per the terms and conditions of the company, the warranty period for spare parts is one year and five years warranty for the compressor only. The opposite party further stated that they have attended for service on 19.06.2013 with a complaint of “no cooling” and the PCB was changed as the warranty expired and the same is done on chargeable basis and the amount was charged. Subsequently on 04.12.2013 once again they have attended for the complaint no.4164584101 which is only a general servicing and the unit was working in good condition and again another complaint was logged vide No.4169796570 and same was attended on 06.03.2014 and replaced the display on payment basis. Once again another complaint was logged vide no.3100511823 and the attended for the service by the authorized service personnel, but it could not be repaired as the estimate of the repairs is Rs.3300/- given by the servicing centre is not accepted by the complainant. The opposite party further submits that any repairs beyond warranty period can be done only on payment basis and therefore the complainant cannot complain that the amounts were charged for servicing. The opposite party further stated that the air conditioner should be periodically used only in the summer and rest of the time to be kept idle as it could develop technical problems as it is common with all the electrical and electronic items. Hence there is no manufacturing defect as could be evident that the unit was in a good working condition for more than one year. The opposite party further stated that in a view of the customer friendly in nature and ready to repair at 50% cost as good will gesture, but the complainant is expecting the service at free of cost for the repair which is not permissible from the companies’ policy. Hence there is no deficiency of service and there is no manufacturing defect on part of them.

        9. The main allegation of the complainant is that the air conditioner is having persistent inherent defect is clear from the service record i.e.Ex:A1 and the opposite party attended for the repair and replaced the 1) Indoor PCB for Samsung Inverter A.C.          2) Outdoor PCB for A.C. and charged Rs.5750/- including service charges. And as per Ex:A3 again the opposite party attended for the repair and replaced 1) DB93 – 10939A, 2) DB82 – 00902A 3)Wiring kit (LP) and charged Rs.6,000/- including service charges again under Ex:A4 the opposite party attended for repair on 13.04.2015 and replaced the parts and gas also refilled and charged Rs.4493/-. This itself clearly shows that the spare parts has been changed repeatedly ,more over within the short period of time spare parts has been replaced and the problem in the air conditioner is still persisted that itself shows that the opposite party is not deligent in repairing the air conditioner properly, which itself amount to deficiency in service on part of the opposite party because, the first complaint was made on 14.06.2013 and the opposite party attended for service and replaced the spare parts by collecting Rs.6,000/-. There after again the problem raised and service personnel replaced the parts on 12.12.2013 and Rs.6,000/- were charged and again on 13.04.2015 they have attended for the repair. The repeated changing of spare parts shows the impropriety of the repair work carried by the opposite party and poor workmanship are the basic reasons for the intermediate breakdown of the air conditioner. The opposite party failed to produce any documentary proof that the air conditioner is  free from manufacturing defect, it is specifically mentioned that the repeated repairs can happen repeatedly since there might be inherent damage in the air conditioner and the opposite party unable to ascertain the main reason for the frequent breakdown of the air conditioner. But, they are repeatedly changing the spare parts without ascertaining the main cause  itself clearly shows the poor workmanship of the opposite party in rectifying the air conditioner. Because as per the Ex:A1 to A4 clearly shows that within span of one year almost all the prime parts of the air conditioner were changed and also the gas also filled in the compressor itself enough to prove that the air conditioner is defective in nature. Hence we are of the opinion that there is clear deficiency in service on part of the opposite party that they failed to rectify the defect in the air conditioner. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

       10. Point(ii):-   The main contention of the complainant that he has purchased the air conditioner on 30.03.2012 for Rs.47,000/- and after one year of the purchase they approached the customer care for servicing the said air conditioner and he has faced repeated problems and he has spent almost  nearly Rs.19,000/- for getting it repair, still the air conditioner is not working . Hence he has deprived to use the benefit of the air conditioner hence he loss caused to the complainant cannot be measured in terms of money. Hence in these circumstances it is just and proper to grant the refund the cost of the air conditioner. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of the air conditioner that is Rs.47,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant by keeping the air conditioner idle without serving any purpose and deficiency in service and also Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

         11.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is  deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, and the complainant is  entitled for the reliefs , as such the complaint is to be allowed.

          In the result, this complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund the cost of the air conditioner i.e. Rs.47,000/- (rupees forty seven thousand only) to the complainant and take back the defective air conditioner from the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/-  (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party is further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the price of the air conditioner in a sum of Rs.47,000/- (rupees forty seven thousand only) ordered to be refunded and also the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 21^th day of January, 2017.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-    

    Lady Member                                                                                                  President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Y. Ravikumar Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).    

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Anindya Bose (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

         EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s        

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Purchase of the Air Conditioner (Original) Warranty Card Bill Dt: 30.03.2012 on behalf of the complainant.
	Repair made by the Authorized Arctic Agency, Bill Dt: 14.06.2013 on behalf of complainant. D.C.No.1382.
	Repair made by the Authorized Arctic Agency, Bill Dt: 12.12.2013 on behalf of complainant. Receipt No.1595.
	Repair made by the Authorized Arctic Agency, Bill Dt: 13.04.2015 on behalf of complainant. Receipt No.2276.
	Mail of reply given by the Samsung India Ele. Pvt. Ltd., Dt: 19.03.2015 on behalf of complainant.
	Mail of reply given by the Samsung India Ele. Pvt. Ltd., Dt: 15.07.2015 on behalf of complainant.
	Mail of reply given by the Samsung India Ele. Pvt. Ltd., Dt: 16.07.2015 on behalf of complainant.
	Legal Notice given to the Managing Director, Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., along with Registered Slip. Dt: 31.08.2015 on behalf of complainant.
	Information of the Notice given to Arctic Agency along with register slip (Postal Cover with Ack. Due) Dt: 31.08.2015 on behalf of complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                                                               // BY ORDER //

 

                                                                                    Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                                                            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant

                  2) The Opposite party.