Haryana

Ambala

CC/19/2017

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aerovision Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 19 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 13.01.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  12.03.2018

 

 

Lt. Kuldeep Singh, Indian Navy(Retd)# 1-A, Nasib Bagh, Near Shyam Nagar Gurudwara, PO Babyal Road, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, Haryana – 133005.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Aerovision LTD, 121-122-122-A, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt-133001 through its proprietor.

2.       Arora Electronics 21, Jain Nagar, Opp. Petrol Pump, Ambala City (through its Manager of Service Centre)

3.       Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd C.I.N.- U31900DL1995PTC071387, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Estate, New Delhi-110044.

 

      ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       None for complainant.

Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 3.

OP No.1 Proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 22.02.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased SAMSUNG (double door fridge) Model  RT 2735 TN by M/S Aerovision Ltd, Ambala Cantt vide its  Bill/Invoice No.S-ACA 1489/12-13 on dated 19.08.2012 with 10 years warranty. The defrosting system (water ice dispenser) of the fridge started non-functioning with 24-28 weeks from the date of purchase. The matter was immediately reported the firm in March 2013 for further rectification of the Fault. An engineer of the OP no.2 from the supplier was sent for its repair, who cleared the accumulated ice with pressure of water with rubber pipe.  The matter was reported to the Firm M/s Aerovision Ltd, Ambala Cantt in writing vide letter  dated 23.04.2016 for its replacement. The OP No.1 neither informed about the case to the manufacturer nor did they take any suitable action. The engineers have stated to the complainant that this is a defective piece and it needs monthly to remove the ice with the pressure of water with rubber pipe or you switch off the Fridge for 3 days whenever this Fridge does not work or you keep the fridge in the open sun light then it will work, but we be charging Rs. 300/- every time whenever we come for clearing the ice. The wife of the complainant is a sugar patient and she has been advised for glargin and novarapid 120 units per day. Many times these injections have been spoiled due to non working of fridge. On 28.06.2016, a letter to the Head of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. New Delhi i.e. OP No.3 was sent by him, whose reply is still awaited. In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP Nos. 2 & 3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no jurisdiction and the complainant had not come before the Court with clean hands. On merits, learned counsel for the OP Nos. 2 & 3 has been submitted that the OP Nos. 2 & 3  provides one year comprehensive warranty and further four year warranty only on the compressor of the unit, and warranty means in case of any issue arising out of manufacturing defect or faulty  workmanship in the unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced  as per warranty policy. OP Nos. further stated that they have an impeccable online system to enter all service requests/complaints vide IMEI/Sr.No. in each  and every case but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no details were found in the online system of the Ops which means that complainant  has never approached to the OP Nos. 2 & 3 or any of its authorized centers. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 and close her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP Nos.2 & 3 tendered affidavits as Annexure R-X & Annexure R-Y and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. It is proved on the file complainant had purchased one Samsung (Double Door Fridge) Model RT 2735 TN by M/s Aerovision Ltd.  from OP No.1 vide invoice no. S-ACA 1489/12/13 dated 19.08.2012 but the complainant has further alleged that the dealer has issued 10 years on the above said fridge.  The grievance of the complainant is that after 24-28 weeks purchasing, it started giving trouble immediately like non functioning within warranty period and same has been rectified by the OP No.2 without taking any charges. The complainant made a complaint to the OP No.1 that the Fridge in question again not working properly from its proper function. The engineer of the OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and cleared the accumulated ice with the pressure of water with rubber pipe. Again and again the problems arose but OP No.2 has denied to rectify the abovesaid defect on the ground that the warranty of the fridge is expired on 18.08.2013. As per the written statement of the OPs No. 2 & 3 have mentioned that OP Nos. 2 & 3 have provided one year warranty (comprehensive warranty) and further four years warranty only on the compressor of the unit. But the warranty of the unit become void in case of the product in question is having following defects:-

(i)      Liquid logged/water logging

(ii)     Physically Damage

(iii)    Serial no. Missing

(iv)    Tampering

(v)     Mishandling/Burnt etc.

 

During the pendency of the case, the complainant moved an application for appointment of the some specialist expert to check the fridge regarding defect arose and same was allowed by this Forum v.o.d. 26.04.2017 and directed to the Hitesh Chawla, Lect. in Mech. Engg. Govt. Polytechnic, Ambala City v.o.d. to appoint an Expert person dealing with the problems of the home appliances. Accordingly, Sh.Hitesh Chawla, Lecturer, was appointed as Local Commissioner and LC has sent his report dated 01.08.2017 in the Forum on 10.08.2017.  In this report, he has pointed out that:

“After inspecting the refrigerator of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, I took temperature readings of another double door Samsung refrigerator installed at my own residential home with the same control knob settings i.e. Point 2 in freezer & point 4 in fridge and the temperature  readings. I got are -13.8’C in freezer & 5.2’C in fridge. It shows  that despite  of so many repairs done by the service center, the refrigerator of Sh. Kuldeep Singh is more than 3 times warmer than my own fridge & it must be having some manufacturing defect & it is not even safe for the preservation of milk because milk must be preserved at around 5’C.

 

 On this report, OP Nos. 2 & 3 have filed objections that LC has not carried out the inspection in the presence their representative. On this point, this Forum has summoned the LC to appear in this Forum on 15.11.2017. On this very date, LC appeared and he was directed to inspect the Fridge of the complainant at 03.00 P.M. today itself i.e. 15.11.2017, there is no requirement to give any notice to both the parties because both the parties were present in the Forum and time & date was fixed by this Forum but on the date fixed, the representative of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 was not present. Due to this reason, the inspection could not be carried out by the Local Commissioner and case was adjourned for 17.11.2017. On that date both parties were present and LC was also present and parties were directed to remain present on the spot and LC was also directed to inspect the fridge on 23.11.2017 at 03.00 P.M. Accordingly, inspection was carried out on the date fixed and LC has submitted the following report:-

“ After taking temperature readings, it was found that, on 23^rd day of Nov. 2017 at 04:15 P.M, the refrigerator of Sh. Kuldeep Singh was working absolutely fine”.

Perusal of the case file reveals that the LC had inspected the product in question for first time in the absence of the OP and when the Ops had objected to the report of the local commissioner on the ground that inspection has been carried in their absence, in the interest of justice the LC was again directed to inspect the product in question in the presence of both the parties. Both reports were carried out in the presence of the complainant but it is strange the complainant has neither appeared before this Forum for the last many hearings  nor filed any objection against the report dated 23.11.2017. In the report dated 23.11.2017, the LC has categorical mentioned that the fridge of Kuldeep Singh was working absolutely fine. However the complainant made the following endorsement (as under the down portion of the fridge does not work/ cool down any time gets struck up and stop cooling). From the above said objections made on the report by the complainant he was duty bound to file the objection before the Forum or stress to this Forum to appoint another LC and he can also moved an application to summon the LC for cross examination on this point. Hence, this Forum has no option but to dismiss the complaint because there is no sufficient evidence to reach at any conclusion. So, the present complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 12.03.2018

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N. ARORA)

      Member                                          Member                            President