BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 377 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 18.06.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 28.04.2011 |
Mahendra Singh s/o Late Sh.Karnail Singh r/o H.No.1008, In front of Shanti Kunj Park, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Jain Electronics, SCO 86, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.4-5, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 3. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, 6th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv. for complainant. OP-1 exparte. Sh.M.S.Punia, Adv. for OPs No.2 and 3. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Mahendra Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Samsung AC Split Model No.24ETAXTL, 3 Star Crystal with stabilizer from OP-1 vide invoice No.4135 dated 25.03.09 for Rs.32,900/- including the installation charges. It is the allegation of the complainant that after 3 days of installation of the AC, foul smell started oozing out from the stabilizer and OP-1 was informed on phone about the problem on 30.03.09. The complainant was assured that the foul smell will reduced with passage of time but the same did not stop as such OP-1 was again informed who in turn assured the complainant to send his person to check the AC. However, the complaint of the complainant was not attended and consequently, he again approached OP-1 who in turn asked him to bring the stabilizer to his shop to which he refused. It is further the case of the complainant that in the 2nd week of April, 2009, OP-1 send the mechanic who inspected the stabilizer and thereafter the same was changed and consequently the foul smell reduced to the extent of 60-70%. The complainant further averred that in the 3rd week of April, 2009, the stabilizer started tripping due to which he could not use the AC and on complaint to OP-1, he was advised to buy higher capacity stabilizer. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant got changed the stabilizer with higher capacity stabilizer having 90 step up. After changing the stabilizer of the higher capacity, the AC started functioning properly. It is further the case of the complainant that during the end of May, 2009, the remote control of the AC became defective and the matter was reported to OP-1 but all in vain and as such he contacted OP-3 who in turn sent the service engineer after one week. The said engineer found defect in the sensor of the remote and took the remote with him and returned it after 2 days. As per the complainant, the AC worked only for 6-8 days and thereafter the cooling rate was reduced drastically and consequently, he had to switch off the AC. On complaint, the service engineer of OP-3 visited after one week and found that the gas had leaked due to faulty installation. The defect was rectified by the OPs. However, after about 8-10 days, the AC again stopped working. The complaint was lodged with OP-3 who sent the engineer. It was found that PC card was faulty and required to be replaced. The complainant requested the service engineer of the OP-3 to replace the defective AC who did not agree to it and told him that the AC could be repaired free of cost till the warranty period. According to the complainant, he sent a number of e-mails to OPs to do the needful but no action had been taken so far, hence, this complaint. 2. OP-1 filed reply by way of affidavit and denied all the averments contained in the complaint. However, it has been admitted that the AC was sold to the complainant vide Bill No.4135 dated 25.03.09. The AC was covered under warranty upto 24.03.2010. However, the service and warranty had to be provided by M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and as such the replying OP was not responsible for the same. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. OPs No.2 and 3 filed their joint written statement denying all the averments made in the complaint. It has been pleaded that the complainant has not permitted them to inspect the machine to carry out any repairs and so the permission may be granted to inspect the machine and carry out the repairs, if any, under the warranty of 5 years. Vide Para No.2, the reports with regard to the inspection of the AC had been recorded. On merits, it is replied that OPs do not install the AC and neither the stabilizer has been provided by the company. The replying OPs are not concerned with the defects in the stabilizer as the same has not been supplied by them. 4. It is admitted that the defect in the stabilizer can affect the AC. It is further replied that the working of the machine was explained to the complainant. According to Ops, the valve had not been adjusted properly which resulted into leakage. That there was no defect in the machine and the defect, if any, was rectified on 22.06.09 immediately on receipt of the complaint. That no problem of gas leakage has been reported. It has further been replied that on 26.10.09, the complainant refused to get the AC inspected and carry out any repair and further did not allow the service engineer to inspect the machine. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 5. Initially, OP-1 appeared but subsequently absented and so was proceeded against exparte. 6. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record. 8. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the AC from OP-1 for Rs.32,900- vide invoice No.4135 dated 25.03.2009 (Annexure C-1) along with the stabilizer. OPs No.2 and 3 have raised the plea that the complaint made by the complainant was attended properly but to this effects, they have not placed on record neither any job card nor any other reliable evidence. OPs No.2 and 3 have also raised the plea that on 26.10.2009, the complainant did not allow the engineer to carry out the repairs to the machine in question. To this effect also, no cogent evidence has been placed on record except the self serving affidavit of Sh.Harvinder Kumar which is not sufficient to prove the said plea. The warranty card is Annexure C-2 on the record and its close scrutiny makes it clear that the AC carries warranty for 12 months. 9. Sh.Umesh Jain on behalf of OP-1 has filed his affidavit wherein he has admitted that the warranty of AC was upto 24.03.2010. The AC in question was purchased on 25.03.2009 by the complainant vide Annexure C-1 referred to above. It has been averred that the defect occurred in the AC on 26.10.2009. It is stated in para No.8 of the complaint that the complainant sent e-mails vide Annexures C-3, C-5, C-7 and C-8 to the CEO of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the defect in the AC. Thus it can be concluded that the problem in the AC occurred on 26.10.09. The AC was purchased on 25.03.2009 vide Annexure C-1. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the problem in the AC occurred during the warranty period. 10. The complainant sent e-mails(Annexures C-3, C-5, C-7 and C-8) and their replies are Annexure C-4 and C-6 respectively. The careful perusal of the e-mails referred to above makes it clear that the complainant had made a number of complaints to rectify the defect in the AC but OPs did not adhere to any of the complaint. There is no evidence on the file to prove that the OPs sent any expert to rectify the defect in the AC despite the promise made in the replies to the e-mails. 11. Now it is proved that OPs have failed to rectify the defect in the AC despite of the repeated requests and e-mails of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. 12. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to replace the AC of the complainant with same make and model failing which OPs are liable to refund Rs.32,900/- i.e. the price of the AC to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 13. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 28.04.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
DISTRICT FORUM – I | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.377 OF 2010 | | PRESENT: Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv. for complainant. OP-1 exparte. Sh.M.S.Punia, Adv. for OPs No.2 and 3. | O R D E R Arguments heard and concluded. Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. |
| | | | | 28.04.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
