Haryana

Ambala

CC/141/2014

VIPAN AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

                BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM : AMBALA

                        Complaint Case No.             :       141 OF 2014

                        Date of Institution                :       26-05-2014

                        Date of Decision                  :       15.07.2016          

                           Vipan Aggarwal son of Sh. Rajeev Aggarwal, resident of  H.No.3550, Timber Market, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                             :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                 Versus

1.             M/s Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 7^th & 8^th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Director/ Managing Director.

2.             M/s Madaan Electronics, Showroom No.4 & 5, Jagadhri Road, Near Punjab Kesri, Ambala Cantt-133001 through its Prop/ Partner.

:::::::Opposite Parties/Respondents.

        Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:              SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-            Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. counsel  for complainant

                        Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv. counsel  for OP No. 1      

OP  No. 2 ex-parte                         

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Split Air Conditioner make Samsung vide bill No.15420 dated 19-5-2009 from OP No.2 in a sum of Rs.33,000/- with warranty of 5 years. After the installation, said A.C. was not working properly as there was no cooling as the A.C. stops functioning after a gap of 5 minutes and unable to restart properly due to heavy noise and defect of compressor as noticed by the complainant. Thereafter complainant made complaint in this regard to customer care number 8428947790 dated 4.5.2014 regarding the above said problem but of no avail and the problem in the A.C. is stand-still. Complainant has purchased the said A.C. to facilitate his old aged parents-in-law as they were suffering from chronic illnesses. Complainant has visited time and again to the office and service centre of respondents and made several requests to take care of the A.C. but of no avail which is a deficiency  in service on the part of OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

 

2.          Notice of complaint was served upon the OPs but OP No.2 failed to appear before the forum inspite of service through regd. Post and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.11.2014. OP no. 1 appeared through counsel and submitted reply raising preliminary objections qua non maintainability of complaint , no cause of action against the answering respondent and complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, by misrepresenting & misinterpreting  and making false allegations, the complaint of the complainant is baseless, barred by limitation, devoid of merits and this Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain & adjudicate the present complaint. On merits, it  has  been  urged that the complainant purchased the A.C. having good knowledge of all the terms and conditions regarding  warranty, repair  related  issues etc. and no claim is made out against the answering respondent since no complaint was ever received by the OP  from the complainant and the complainant has filed present complaint after 5 years from the date of its purchase, without any technical/ Expert report though the same was mandatory.  In the end, OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 

3.          To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to  C-4 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No. 1  tendered in evidence affidavit of one Anindya Bose, as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

 

 

4.           We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased  a  new Samsung A.C. with the assurance of proper functioning. After some time, the said A.C. started giving problem and failed to perform satisfactorily wherefrom it is established that this model of the A.C. was having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond the repairs of service centre.  Besides it, to strengthen his case, the complainant  has relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.  On the other hand OP counsel argued that OP company is the reputed company and provides world class service to its customers and the complainant has filed frivolous complaint after utilizing the refrigerator in question more than 5 years only to grab compensation from the Ops and requested for dismissal of complaint and also referred the case laws reported in 2011 IV CPJ Page 138 (NC) & 2013 (1) CPJ 47 ( NC) to prove his contention.

 

 

5.           At the very outset, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the A.C. in question of Samsung  was  sold  by OP No.2 to the complainant on 19-5-2009. Further, it is also not in dispute that the A.C. was having a comprehensive warranty of one year plus four years warranty of compressor from the date of its purchase but  complainant has not tendered any document on the file qua making of any complaint to OP regarding fault in the A.C. in question nor filed any affidavit of any Mechanic or Engineer to prove his contention i.e. defects, if any, in the Air conditioner in question which was necessarily to be submitted as per section 13 (1) of C.P.Act. As such, we have come to the conclusion that it is nowhere proved that the A.C. in question was having any manufacturing defect/ inherent defect as alleged in the complaint since no any document or even report of any expert has been produced  by the complainant to prove his contention. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that OPs are not at fault as alleged rather complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:15.07.2016                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                     ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                  Sd/-

                              ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                                          MEMBER