| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.223 of 30.5.2016 Decided on: 29.3.2017 Mohinder Bhalla aged about 74 years s/o Sohan Lal R/o H.No.140, Ajit Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. M/s Amar Traders Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Prop. 2. M/s Dixon Electronics, Gurudwara Dukhniwaran Road, Near Hotel Flyover, Factory Area, Patiala. 3. CEO Cum Chairman Samsung India Electronics, Plot No.44, Sector 44,Gurugaon, Haryana. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Opposite parties No.1&2 ex-parte. Sh.J.S.Sandhu,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.3 ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one Split Air Conditioner of Samsung ( SMG SAC 1.5T AR18HV5nFWK 1) from OP No.1 on 30.5.2015 for an amount of Rs.44,500/-. It is averred that from the very first date of the said purchase, the AC started giving problem. The complainant made several complaints to the company’s service centre at Delhi as well as at Patiala and in every complaint OP told that their service engineer Mr.Harjot would attend to the complaint. But Mr.Harjot never visited the house of the complainant. In the month of April,2016, when the complainant switched on the AC, it was not cooling the room and the complainant again lodged a complaint with the service centre. The mechanic of the service centre after checking the AC told the complainant that there was no gas in the AC and it required to be refilled. It is further averred that even after gas refilling, the AC did not provide as effective cooling as required and the complainant lodged a complaint and also wrote a letter to the company’s CEO/Chairman on 1.5.2016, which was returned with the postal authority remarks “Refused to Accept”. On 3.5.2016, the complainant received a letter dated 3.5.2016 written by OP No.2. Again the complainant wrote a letter to the CEO on 6.5.2016 which too was returned with the postal authority remarks “Refused to Accept”. Again on 21.5.2016, the cooling of the AC was totally nil and the complainant lodged a complaint with the service centre at Patiala. As such the complainant lodged various complaints and underwent a lot of harassment and mental tension. Ultimately, he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs no.1&2 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte, whereas OP no.3 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. The plea put forth by OP no.3 is that when the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant on 19.4.2016, the A.C. in question was working properly, cooling was normal and all other parameters were within normal range, gas pressure was also found to be proper. After 19.4.2016, the complainant never lodged any complaint regarding of the A.C. in question. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to C6 and his counsel closed the evidence.
Whereas counsel for OP no.3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Anindya Bose, DGM of Samsung India Elec. And closed the evidence. - We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, the ld. counsel for OP no.3 and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the Samsung AC from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.44,500/- on 30.5.2015.Ex.C2 is the letter written by the complainant to CEO/Chairman of Samsung Electronics, which was received back with the comment ‘Refused to Accept’. Ex.C4 is the letter dated 3.5.2016 written by Op no.2 to the complainant wherein OP no.2 has written that after extensive diagnosis by its certified technical support engineer’, no defect was found in the product unit. It is further submitted that the complainant expected replacement of the A.C. unit but is not possible unless the product has some technical fault as such it will not be possible to either replace or repair the product.
- In the present case, the complainant purchased the A.C. in question on 30.5.2015. In the month of April,2016 the A.C. started giving problem and the complainant lodged a complaint with the O.Ps. and on 19.4.2016, the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the A.C. and found that there was no problem in the said A.C. All the other parameters were checked . AC was cleaned, air filter was also changed and the service of the A.C. was done as per the service schedule. Though the complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence showing any problem in the A.C. but Ex.C2 & Ex.C5 are the two letters written by the complainant to OP no.3 regarding the ‘unsatisfactory of service’, which shows that the problem occurred in the A.C. during the warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same.The failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the same is amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OPs No.2&3 to repair the A.C. in question free of cost as the problem occurred in the A.C. during warranty period. The complaint against Op No.1 is dismissed. The OPs No. 2&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:29.3.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
