Date of Filing: 11/07/2011
Date of Order: 19/09/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1268 OF 2011
Sri. Vinayak Prabhu,
Aged About 57 years,
S/o. Venkatesh Prabhu,
R/at:’ Ashraya’ No.138,
9th Cross, 3rd Main, Sandhamini Layout,
Konanakunte, Bangalore-62.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.K.S.Chandra Shekar) Complainant.
-V/s-
(1) M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office,
1st Floor, Copia Corporate Towers,
Flat No.9, Jasola Dist Center, New Delhi-25.
Rep. by its Director.
(2) The Manager,
M/s. Samsung Services Plaza,
No.8, West of Chord Road,
II Stage, Mahalakshmi Pura,
Near Swathi Hotel,
Bangalore-86.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.K.P. Bhuvan) Opposite parties.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.59,000/-, are necessary:-
The products manufactured by the first opposite party is being marketed and sold through the second opposite party who is the authorized service center also. The complainant had purchased a Refrigerator from the first opposite party, but the Refrigerator had technical problem of overheating, hence a complaint was lodged with the second opposite party on 31.03.2007 to rectify it. The technical personal who attended the complaint informed him that it is common and nothing is wrong in using the fridge and set-right the problem. The Refrigerator was under warranty at that particular point of time. The complainant had no alternative except to use it, but the problem repeated again and again. A complaint was filed with the second opposite party on 30.03.2010 in complaint No.8404931524 as the Refrigerator was over heating and there is leakage of water further the Refrigerator stopped functioning. One Kumarswamy of the second opposite party came and found that the heater of the fridge is not working and stated it will be replaced when the stock arrives. On 23.03.2010 and 10.04.2010 two more remainders were issued to the second opposite party. Sri. Kumaraswamy of the second opposite party collected the purchase invoice and left. After long hibernation one Sri. Thyagarajan of the second opposite party informed the complainant that the company is not having the spare parts of that model as it is two year old and offered to buy back the Refrigerator at the rate of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant agreed to it. But nothing happened. If the opposite party had rectified the problem on 31.03.2007 there would not have been any problem. Hence the complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties on 12.07.2010 seeking payment of Rs.29,000/- the value of the Refrigerator with 18% interest and Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The complaint is barred by time. The complainant had purchased the Refrigerator from its authorized dealers bearing model No. RT45MASM1/XTL on 19.03.2007. The warranty was for one year i.e., up to 19.03.2008. The complainant never lodged a complaint with the opposite party on 31.03.2007 as alleged. The first complaint is lodged by the complainant on 23.03.2010 after lapse of warranty period. He has stated in the said complaint regarding the over-heating and leakage of water. Thus the complainant is not entitled for free service or replacement of any parts. However the opposite party rectified the defects free of costs. Due to negligence and mishandling or due to excess supply of current/power or instability of the electricity the fridge might have lost its usage value. The opposite party without prejudice has offered to buy back the fridge of the complainant on the request of the complainant and pay the value of the fridge after deducting the depreciation value and offered to purchase the fridge for Rs.9,860/- and sent a cheque bearing No.993191 dated: 24.06.2010 drawn on Bank of America payable at Bangalore. The complainant accepted the offer in the beginning later failed to accept the cheque. At any point of time the opposite party has not offered to buy back the fridge for Rs.25,000/-. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the complainant had filed a Memo stating that, his complaint and documents be read as his evidence. The opposite parties has filed affidavit and both of them filed written arguments.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is barred by time?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) to (C):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (C):-
6. The complaint is summarized supra the same be read herein again. The complainant never stated in the complaint on what date he purchased the Refrigerator? What was the value of the Refrigerator? What was the warranty period? The complaint in this regard as bald as it could be. The complainant has stated that the fridge had a problem of overheating and he lodged a complaint with the second opposite party on 31.03.2007, and it was not rectified. The opposite party has denied it. When the complainant knew of the problem of overheating in the fridge on 31.03.2007 he could have lodged a complaint before the opposite parties in writing or over phone and getting the complaint number. That has not been done. In any event according to the complainant the fridge had problem of overheating from and on 31.03.2007 hence the cause of action to file the complaint regarding the manufacturing defect started on 31.03.2007. When once the limitation starts it cannot stop. Hence complaint filed on 14.07.2011 is hopelessly barred by time as rightly contended.
7. In any event reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents of both the parties and affidavit of second opposite party it is established that the complainant had purchased a Samsung Refrigerator model – RT45 for Rs.25,777.78 paise and the VAT of Rs.3,222.22 paise from National Radio House Milagres Cross Road, Mangalore. That National Radio House is not a party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party. As the complainant had purchased the Refrigerator at Mangalore on 20.03.2007 as per the invoice, how can this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
8. In any event as on 31.03.2007 the second opposite party is in no way concern to the complainant since the second opposite party is situated at Bangalore then to whom the complainant has informed about the overheating as on 31.03.2007? Where he has informed? Which is that service station? All remained Question mark. Hence the complaint is an untenable one.
9. In any event what the complainant has stated that on 30.03.2010 he lodged a complaint with the second opposite party in Complaint No.8404931524 for overheating, leakage of water and non-functioning of the Refrigerator. The opposite party No.2 has produced the job-card with respect to the said complaint. This is after the warranty period. A warranty for the Refrigerator is only for one year and as the warranty period was over the opposite party has informed the complainant that the complainant is not entitled for free service or replacement of any parts. The opposite party has stated and sworn to that as a matter of goodwill gesture it had rectified the defects, when it has rectified the defects it was for the complainant to take the Refrigerator and use it. In any event the complainant has stated that the parts cannot be replaced since there is no stock of the parts. The complainant has stated that one Mr. Thyagarajan had offered to buy-back the Refrigerator for Rs.25,000/- as it is an old model, but it was not accepted. The opposite party denied it. The opposite party has clearly stated that taking the depreciation value of the old model they had offered Rs.9,860/- to buy-back the Refrigerator and sent the cheque to the complainant on 24.06.2010. The complainant though accepted earlier later refused to receive it. The said statement of the opposite party is fully corroborated by the copy of the cheque sent to the complainant. Hence it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. If any person had offered to buy-back the Refrigerator for Rs.25,000/- the remedy of the complainant is to approach the Civil Court for specific performance of the agreement or to pay damages, but there is no material to show that the opposite party had agreed to buy-back the Refrigerator for Rs.25,000/-. The complainant wants the entire amount of Rs.29,000/-. On what basis he claims the money? He had used the Refrigerator for more than two years, though the warranty is only for one year. There was no complaint lodged. Hence if he is interested he can get the Refrigerator repaired, if it is possible or to sale the Refrigerator on the depreciation value for which he is not prepared. Hence it cannot be said there is any deficiency in service. Hence under these circumstances, we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
