Judgment : Dt.11.8.2017
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of C. P. Act by Sonali Sarkar alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, namely – (1) M/S Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., 20, Old Court House Street, (2) M/S Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., 102, Diamond Harbour Road, (3) M/S Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., (4) M/S S. N. Enterprise.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased Samsung made refrigerator having model No.Samsung RT-26 ADJBI/250 Ltrs from the OP Nos.1 & 2 who are the dealer of the OP No.3 namely M/S Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. The OP dealers delivered the said refrigerator on 1.9.2011 for a consideration of Rs.11,800/-. It is stated by the Complainant that the said refrigerator had been functioning smoothly but in the middle of 2015 it could not function properly due to defective compressor of it. Accordingly, the Complainant lodged complaint to the OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 on 3.6.2015, 9.7.2015 but no step was taken by them. It is further stated by the Complainant that ultimately an authorized person of OP No.3 on 4.6.2015 took the defective refrigerator from the residence of the Complainant on pretext of that the defective compressor would be replaced by new one and the refrigerator would be returned to the Complainant in proper working condition. The Complainant has stated that the OPs returned the said refrigerator having its necessary repair done. The Complainant, stated that she even served notices to the Opposite Parties through her Ld. Advocate to that effect. The Complainant specifically stated that such acts and conducts on the part of the OPs are example of deficiency in service for which they may be directed to supply the refrigerator after its proper repair or replacing by new one, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony and to pay the cost of litigation.
The Complainant annexed Photostat copies of the following documents:-
- Tax invoice dt.30.9.2011 issued by Great Eastern.
- Money receipt dt.30.9.2011 issued by Great Eastern.
- Money receipt dt.29.9.2011 issued by Great Eastern
- Acknowledgement of service request.
The OP Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case and filed written version denying and disputing all material allegations stating, inter alia, that on 1.9.2011 they delivered one Samsung made refrigerator to the residence of the Complainant in good condition and the Complainant being satisfied received the same. The Complainant, however has alleged that the problem of non-functioning was started on 4.6.2015 in respect of which the OP No.1 duly communicated the Complaint to the manufacturer and the manufacturer sent their mechanic for repairing the same and the OP No.3 being the service centre repaired the refrigerator upto the satisfaction of the Complainant. The answering OPs specifically stated that the responsibility to keep the refrigerator defect free within the warranty period lies upon the manufacturer and, therefore, the dealer has no role to play in it. Accordingly, the answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.
The Complainant and the OP Nos.1 & 2 adduced evidence on affidavit followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.
The Complainant also files written notes of argument.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 during argument has submitted that being dealer the OP Nos.1 & 2 have no liability regarding after sale service of the goods in question. In support of this submission Ld. Advocate or the OP Nos.1 & 2 relied on the following decisions – (1) the judgment passed by Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal on 21.4.2017 in the case of Piyali Bairagi VS Great Eastern Appliances and Ors; (2) [Hindusthan Motors Ltd. and Anr. VS XI SIVA KUMAR & Ans] (2000) 10 Supreme Court cases 654; (3) 2016 (4) CPR 206 NC [NISSAN Motor India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr Vs. Giraj Kishore Bansal and Ors.], (4) 1(2012) CPJ 110 NC [Rama Shankar Yadav Vs J.P. Associate Ltd.].
Points for determination
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the OPs?
- Is there deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision. Evidently, the Complainant purchased a refrigerator manufactured by Samsung India Ltd. and retailed by the Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd. at a consideration of Rs.11,800/- which was paid to the Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. who receiving the said amount delivered the said refrigerator to the Complainant on 01.09.2011.The Complainant has alleged that in middle of 2015 the said refrigerator started malfunctioning and she made contact to the OPs for repairing the same since it was under warranty coverage at the said point of time. The Complainant has further stated that an authorized person of the OP No.3 attended the said refrigerator and told her that the compressor of the refrigerator was defective and the same would be replaced by new one and, therefore, took the said refrigerator with him for proper repairing at the workshop. In paragraph 13 of the petition of complaint the Complainant has stated that the said refrigerator was returned by the Opposite Parties after repairing the same.
The Complainant alleged that the said refrigerator contained a defective compressor. Had it been so, the said refrigerator would not have been functioning properly for almost four years. Further, no report from any competent authority has been furnished, wherefrom it would have been evident that the said refrigerator was containing a defective compressor from the very beginning. Therefore, it is held that due to wear and tear of the machine it had started malfunctioning and after necessary repair the same started proper functioning.
However, as per terms of warranty, the manufacturer was liable to repair the said goods within warranty period and they did their job.
The contesting OPs i.e. Great Eastern Appliance Pvt. Ltd. have reiterated the point that the manufacturer is solely liable to compensate the Complainant for deficiency in service, if at all, and cited several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal, but those rulings are not applicable to the instant case since their Lordships arrived at the said decisions in respect of manufacturing defects of goods and in the instant case no manufacturing defect has been established as no authentic report has been furnished to that effect. Moreover, no deviation from the terms of warranty on the part of the Opposite Parties has been observed.
In such view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant failed to substantiate the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
In the result the petition does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/13/2015 is dismissed on contest against OP Nos.1 & 2 and ex-parte against OP Nos.3 & 4.
