BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.244 of 2018
Date of Institution: 03.10.2018
Date of Decision : 28.03.2019
Manish Goyal son of Shri Bhagirath, resident of village Ding, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Anil Bartan Store, Near Railway Station, Ding Mandi, District Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, through its Manager/authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Y.K.Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for Op No.2.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased one Samsung refrigerator from opposite party no.1 on 17.05.2017 for a sum 18,000/- vide bill No.1165 and the product in question was having one year guarantee. Unfortunately, said refrigerator stopped working after one month of its purchase as its cooling system was of poor quality. The complainant lodged complaints regarding this on 07.10.2017, 27.05.2018 and 12.06.2018 but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Ops and requested either to get the same checked and to remove the defect or to replace the same but they refused to do so. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but it also did not yield anything. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. None has appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and as such it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.12.2018.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts etc. It has been submitted that the complainant has failed to prove on the case file that the product in question was of not good quality and there is no expert evidence on the case file. The complainant had approached to company on 26.05.2017 and reported about cooling issue in the unit. The engineer of the company had checked the unit and found Main PBA defective and replacement was provided under (Dead on Arrival ) DOA and the unit started working in OK condition upto the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the replying Op on 07.10.2017 and on 12.06.2018 with issue of cooling but both the time no issue was found by the engineer and on 24.07.2018, no issue regarding cooling was found in the unit by the engineer. The reported problem in the unit was due to voltage problem and not due to any fault in the unit and the unit was found OK. The complainant got satisfied and signed a letter of satisfaction to this effect. Thereafter, the complainant had never reported any problem. The company had provided one year warranty on the unit and further four year warranty only for the compressor and the warranty of the unit was subject to some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:
1.Liquid logged/ water logging.
2.Physically damage.
3.Serial No.Missing.
4.Tampering.
5.Mishandling/burnt etc.
It has been submitted that the Op company were and are always ready to provide services to the complainant as per the conditions of warranty, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying OP. The present complaint is nothing but a motivated attempt just to get illegal gains as the unit has already been replaced by the company and the same fact has been concealed by the complainant and the replaced unit had checked by the engineer of the company whenever any issue was reported by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. We have heard learned for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the contents and also placed on record documents such as copy of bill Ex.CW1/A, copy of job sheet and report Ex.CW1/B & Ex.CW1/C, copy of legal notice Ex.CW1/D and its receipt Ex.CW1/E. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur Ex.R1, in which, he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement and the Op No.1 has also tendered documents copy of warranty card Ex.R2, copy of customer service record card Ex.R3, copy of technical report Ex.R4 and copy of letter of satisfaction Ex.R5.
7. It is an admitted fact that on 17.05.2017, the complainant had purchased a Samsung Refrigerator from OP No.1 vide bill No.1165 for a sum of Rs.18,000/-. After sometime, refrigerator of the complainant was not working properly, as a result of which, he had been knocking the doors of the service centre of the company time and again for redressal of his grievance and to make the refrigerator defect free but ops have refused to do so. It is clearly mentioned in the written statement of op no.1 that the unit has been replaced but it is not denied that the complainant had lodged complaints on 26.05.2017, 07.10.2017, 12.06.2018 and on 24.07.2018 regarding not working of the refrigerator properly. So, it is proved on record that refrigerator of the complainant is not working properly and it is also proved fact that refrigerator of the complainant was within warranty period. As such, it is the legal obligation of the opposite parties to provide proper service to the complainant but they failed to so, which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the complainant to handover the refrigerator in question to the Ops within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. The Ops are directed to carry out the necessary repairs of the refrigerator and to make the same defect free even by replacing defective parts of the same, without any cost, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case, it is found that the refrigerator is not repairable, in that eventuality, to replace the same with new one of the same make and model or otherwise to refund the price of the refrigerator. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 28.03.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
