This is a complaint made by one Parimal Mondal against M/s Genesis and M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., praying for refund of Rs. 13,200/-or replacement of the old defective refrigerator and also for a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 5,000/-.

Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased a new refrigerator of Samsung make from M/s Genesis of 174/33, A&C, N.S.C. Bose Road, Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700 040, Model No. SAMSUNG REF RR19J 2784NT.  At the time of delivery, the deep freezer door was found in broken condition and the delivery man was immediately apprised of the fact, who advised the Complainant to lodge an official complaint.  So, a complaint was lodged by the Complainant on the very same day, i.e., on 25-06-2015 and after 3/4 days, the broken door was replaced, but the refrigerator was still not working properly.  So, necessary complaints were made on 04-07-2015, 15-07-2015, 29-07-2015 and also on 19-08-2015 and every time one technician attended to his complaint, but none of them could succeeded in resolving the problem and advised replacement of the refrigerator.  Therefore, the Complainant asked for either replacing the defective refrigerator with a new one or refund the money, but to no avail.  So, a complaint was lodged with the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices to resolve the matter through mediation and subsequently, a meeting was fixed on 23-02-2016.  It is stated that although the Complainant attended the meeting, there was no show of the OP.  Left with no other option, Complainant filed this case.

On the basis of above facts, the complaint was admitted and notices were served upon the OPs, but they did not contest it in a positive manner.  So, the case was heard ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his claim, e.g., Tax Invoice dated 25-06-2015 showing payment of Rs. 13,200/- being the cost of the refrigerator, copies of email correspondences.

Despite receipt of notice, the OPs did not file written version in order to refute the allegations of the Complainant.  However, OP No. 2 filed one brief notes of argument (WNA) wherein it is stated that one engineer visited the Complainant’s place on 23-08-2015 and after due inspection, requested the Complainant to allow doing necessary repairing, but the Complainant was adamant to get a new refrigerator.  It is further stated that on 14-12-2015, after replacement, the Complainant again raised an issue of water leakage.  Relying on such complaint, the service engineer offered to replace the chiller tray, but it was not acceptable to the Complainant.  It is alleged that even after replacement of the modified chiller tray, as the Complainant was not satisfied, one service engineer was again deputed, who noticed that the Complainant tried to take out the chiller tray and scrap off the sides of the sponge.  It is claimed that the issue of improper ventilation does not come under the warranty and the OP is not responsible to repair the alleged product free of cost.  It is further claimed that one service engineer visited the place of the Complainant on 14-01-2016 and found that the refrigerator was working properly. 

It is alleged that on 23-08-2015, its service engineer offered to repair the defects, but the Complainant was adamant to get a new refrigerator.   However, subsequently, it is admitted that due replacement has been made.  Again, it is alleged that on 14-12-2015, the service engineer offered to replace the chiller tray, but the Complainant did not agree.  However, we find that the chiller tray has been replaced.  What is indeed intrigue is the fact that, it is not even the case of the OP that the Complainant ever made false allegations about the functioning of the refrigerator.  Above all, although the OP No. 2 has cited non-cooperation from the side of the Complainant, copy of no service report is filed to support such allegation. 

Citing warranty clause, it is claimed by the OP No. 2 that the issue of improper ventilation does not come within the ambit of warranty.  However, on going through the WNA, we find that on 14-12-2015, the Complainant raised the issue of water leakage, which admittedly remained unresolved.  Accordingly, the bid to take shelter under the warranty clause (improper ventilation) appears to be a misnomer.  True, the OP has accused the Complainant of tampering of the chiller tray, but no substantive material is produced before us to back such allegation. Further, although it is claimed by the OP No. 2 that during inspection of the refrigerator on 14-01-2016, it’s service engineer found the same in working condition.  However, here too, no cogent documentary proof like job sheet/service report is filed to corroborate such claim.     

OP No. 2 has also cited a decision of Hon’ble National Commission, reported in (1993) II CPJ 230 (231) NC, but in the context of present facts and circumstances, the same has got no bearing. 

As such, we are of view that the Complainant is entitled to get either a new defect free refrigerator of similar specification or refund of Rs. 13,200/- from the OPs.

However, so far as Complainant’s demand for compensation is concerned, we find little or no logic in such demand given the fact that the OP No. 2 did attempt to resolve the issues raised by the Complainant from time to time.  As regards litigation cost, we find that the case was conducted by the Complainant in person. So, we are not inclined to award any litigation cost in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that CC/178/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs in part.  OPs are directed to refund Rs. 13,200/- or replace the refrigerator with a new one of similar specification within two months from the date of this order, i.d., the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. after expiry of two months.