Date of filing: 23.12.2022
Date of disposal: 27.06.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA.,ML, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL., ......MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),BL., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.05/2023
THIS TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2023
Mr.P.Mohana Sundaram,
S/o.I.Parthasarathy,
Residing at 375A, Opp Mosque,
Madharpakkam high way,
Madharpakkam – 601 201. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.M/s.Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,
Rep. by its Regional Head,
Regional Office,
No.SL.14, Express Avenue,
No.B1, Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
2.The Branch Manager,
Sathya Agencies Private Limited,
No.68, GNT Road,
Gummidipoondi 601 201.
3.The Director,
Sathya Agencies Private Limited,
No.103/2A/2 TVM Road,
Murugankurichi, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli 627 002. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.V.Balaji, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : M/s.P.Suresh, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd & 3rd opposite party : M/s.N.M.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate.
This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 13.06.2023 in the presence of M/s.V.Balaji counsel for the complainant and M/s.P.Suresh counsel for the 1st opposite party and M/s.N.M.Prasanna Kumar counsel for the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective Air Conditioner unit along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the New Air Conditioner unit for old unit, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties in selling a defective Air Conditioner unit, the present complaint was filed.
It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased Air Conditioner model Samsung AC 2ton AR24AY4YATA 4 STAR, inverter-04RLPPCR400039/04RGPPAR400058 from 2nd opposite party on 28.06.2021 for an amount of Rs.57,180/-. A sales person Mr.Bakiyaraj, Samsung company representative of the shop showed comprehensive warranty details of the Samsung Air Conditioners and motivated the complainant to purchase it. As per the warranty details mentioned in the pamphlet, for all the spares of the machine minimum warranty from 5 years to maximum of 10 years. As per the sales person these warranties was applicable for all inverter Air Conditioners, complainant satisfied with the warranty purchased the Air Conditioner that day itself and the technician of the Samsung Company installed the machine at complainant‘s home. The complainant was shocked and surprised that there was a big sound with high pressure, gas escaped with flash, came from the air conditioner machine on 11.10.2022. On the same day the complainant has raised a complaint through Sathya Agencies in complaint No.4357572860. On 12.10.2022 Samsung technician attended the issue and assessed the gas leakage problem and mentioned in the customer service record sheet everything about the problem and finally he told the charges for servicing the machine to the complainant. Complainant visited the showroom of the 2nd opposite party on 13.10.2022 and requested the person in charge Mr.Iliyathulla and Mr.Bakiyaraj Samsung representative regarding the replacement of the machine but they said that they would inform within 2 to 3 days. But there was no reponse from them. Then the complainant sent a detailed email to Sathya agencies, Gummidipoondi and CEO of Sathya agencies and Samsung Service Centre, ponneri and requested them to replace the Air Conditioner, but there was no response from them. Hence complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and service provider on 21.10.2022. Thus, aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to replace the New Air Conditioner unit for old unit, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party:-
The 1st opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant has purchased a Samsung AC 2ton from the 2nd opposite party on 28.06.2021 as admitted by the complainant that the product had comprehensive warranty. The complainant had raised a complaint on 12.10.2022 and the Service Engineer visited on the very next day and arrested the gas leakage problem. The Service Engineer also informed the complainant about the charges payable for filling the gas. Merely because there was a gas leakage due to various reasons which would have caused even due to mishandling by the complainant, there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 2&3:-
The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against the opposite parties and this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as, it was not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegation that on 11.10.2022 around 1.00pm a big sound with high pressure gas along with flash came out from the Air Conditioner machine and that they came out the house and switched off the power to the Air Conditioner Machine was denied. Complainant made a complaint and that technician from the authorized service centre had attended the problem, but the technician did not ask for any servicing charges. The opposite parties sent their technician and they found out the problem as leakage of gas from the Air Conditioner unit and the service person had refilled the gas and the Air Conditioner Unit was functioning well from that time and there was no problem in the AC unit till now. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part and they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A16 was submitted. On the side of 1st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 was submitted. On the side of 2nd & 3rd opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B7 & Ex.B8 was submitted.
Points for consideration:
Whether the complaint allegations with respect to selling of a Samsung Air Conditioner unit 2 ton AR24AY4AYTZ 4 STAR, Inverter-04RLPPCR400039/04RGPPAR400058 by the opposite parties with inherent manufacturing defect has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
Whether the complaint allegations with respect to servicing the Air Conditioner unit by the opposite parties has been proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1&2:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Tax Invoice issued by the 2nd opposite party for the purchase of AC dated 28.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 28.06.2021 05.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;
Comprehensive warranty details was marked as Ex.A3;
Copy of customer service record card was marked as Ex.A4;
Emails sent by the complainant dated 17.10.2022 & 19.10.2022 were marked as Ex.A5 & Ex.A6;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties and authorized service centre dated 21.10.2022 and acknowledgement cards for proof of delivery were marked as Ex.A7 to Ex.A10;
Cover returned from the authorized service centre was marked as Ex.A11;
Reply notice from Sathya Agencies, Tirunelveli dated 03.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A12;
Acknowledgement card of rejoinder, Sathya Agencies, Tirunelveli dated 17.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A13;
Aadhar card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A14;
Rejoinder notice sent to the 3rd opposite party dated 10.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A15;
Photo of compressor was marked as Ex.A16;
On the side of 1st opposite party the following documents was submitted in support of their defence;
Warranty card was marked as Ex.B1;
Customer service record cards dated 30.06.2021, 06.10.2021, 12.10.2022 and 08.02.2023 were marked as Ex.B2 to Ex.B5;
Estimation confirmation dated 08.02.2023 was marked as Ex.B6;
On the side of opposite parties 2 & 3 the following documents was submitted in support of their defence;
Complaint registered copy was marked as Ex.B7;
Complaint service registered copy was marked as Ex.B8;
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that, induced by a pamphlet given by the opposite parties believing that the product has five years guaranty the complainant purchased an Air Conditioner unit on 28.06.2021. However, on 11.10.2022 at 1.00 pm the compressor got bursted with huge noise which was immediately reported to the opposite parties. Identifying the same as gas leakage problem by the Samsung technician sought for charges from the complainant but the complainant requested for replacement of the machine as the same was under the warranty period. Inspite of complainant approaching several times the opposite parties did not replace the unit stating that the agency has nothing to do and it is only the manufacturer’s is responsibility. It is argued that gas leakage in the Air Conditioner unit is not a simple issue as R32 gas (Refrigerant) chemical called difluoro methane which is classified as dangerous goods and flammable was used in it. The Air conditioner unit is not yet serviced but in the reply notice it was mentioned that the Authorized Service Centre has refilled the gas and that the Air conditioner unit was functioning well. Thus, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st opposite party that five-year warranty was given only for compressor and not for gas leakage problem or filling Gas “Citing the Warranty Guide by product terms and conditionsit“ is submitted that refill of gas/coolant due to physical damage or during replacement of compressor or condenser under part specific warranty period shall be on chargeable basis, it was submitted that Rs.2,500/- was charged for gas filling. Only one year warranty was given for the entire product. Thus he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
The learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 2&3 submitted that no Police complaint was given by the complainant when the Air Condition outdoor unit was alleged to have burst. Further, it is submitted the gas was filled and the AC was in good working condition and thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
On perusal of the entire pleadings and materials the factum of purchase of Air Conditioner unit and that the problem arose on 11.10.2022 was not disputed by either of the parties. Only disputed issue is that whether the problem arose due to inherent manufacturing defect of the product and whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of the product. It is stated by the opposite parties that the product gave gas leakage problem which was duly attended by them by filling gas at a cost of Rs.2,500/-. However, the same was disputed by the complainant stating that the machine was not yet repaired and was lying idle without usage. On perusal of the service records we could see that only Ex.B2 dated 30.06.2021 was in the name of the complainant Mohana Sundaram and that pertains to product installation. Ex.B3 the customer service record card did not contain the customer signature Mohana Sundaram but somebody else. Ex.B4 & Ex.B5 also did not contain the customer signature and the customer name was found in Ex.B5 as one J.Priya. These discrepancies were not properly explained by the opposite parties. Hence it is apparently seen that the Air conditioner unit was not repaired /serviced by the opposite parties and that it was in a good working condition as alleged by the opposite parties. When it is the specific contention of the complainant that the outdoor unit got burst with a huge noise it is to be construed that it is a serious problem that the compressor itself got burst resulting in gas leakage. In such circumstances the allegation made by the complainant that the same resulted due to some inherent defect in the product could not be easily brushed aside. The argument of the 1st opposite party that after the warranty period of one year no relationship exists between the purchaser and the manufacturer could not be entertained for the reason that when the product got repaired within a shot span of purchase. Further, at this juncture the contention of the complainant that the unit was not repaired and remains idle has to be taken into consideration. In such scenario we have no other option but to hold that the product supplied to the complainant suffers with some inherent manufacturing defect resulting in bursting of the compressor and that the opposite parties had failed to provide appropriate service to rectify the defect. Thus, the points are answered accordingly holding that the complaint allegations with respect to selling of a defective Samsung Air Conditioner unit was successfully proved by the complainant and the opposite parties are to be held liable for the same.
Point No.3:-
With regard to the relief to be granted as the manufacturing defect was proved by the complainant, we thought it would be appropriate to order the opposite parties to replace the unit with a new Air Conditioner unit along with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 directing them
a) To replace a New Air Conditioner Unit for the old unit within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of June 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 28.06.2021 AC purchase invoice. Xerox
Ex.A2 28.06.2021 Receipt. Xerox
Ex.A3 ................ Comprehensive warranty details. Xerox
Ex.A4 12.10.2022 Customer service record card. Xerox
Ex.A5 17.10.2022 Mail communication sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 19.10.2022 Mail communication sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 21.10.2022 Legal notice issued by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A8 ................ Acknowledgement card, Samsung Electronics. Xerox
Ex.A9 ................ Acknowledgement card, Sathya Agencies, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A10 ............... Acknowledgement card, Sathya Agencies, Tirunelveli. Xerox
Ex.A11 ............... Legal notice returned, Authorized Service Centre. Xerox
Ex.A12 03.11.2022 Reply noitce received from Sathya Agencies, Tirunelveli. Xerox
Ex.A13 17.11.2022 Acknowledgement card of rejoinder, Sathya Agencies, Tirunelveli. Xerox
Ex.A14 ................ Complainant Aadhar card for address proof. Xerox
Ex.A15 15.11.2022 Rejoinder sent to third opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A16 ................ Photo of compressor. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 1st opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ................. Warranty card. Xerox
Ex.B2 30.06.2021 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B3 06.10.2021 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B4 21.04.2022 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B5 12.10.2022 Customer Service Record Card. Xerox
Ex.B6 08.02.2023 Estimation confirmation. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 2nd & 3rd opposite party:-
Ex.B7 ................ Complaint Registered Copy. Xerox
Ex.B8 ............... Complaint service Registered. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
