Haryana

Ambala

CC/174/2017

Jaspal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samsung India Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Sharma

24 Jul 2018

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 174 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 05.06.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 24.07.2018

 

 

Jaspal son of Amarjit Singh, resident  of Village  Laharsa, Tehsil & District, Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Samsung India Electronics India P. Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Co-operative Indl. Estate, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director.

2.       M/s M.R.G. Marketing P.Limited Kartar Nagar, Model Town, Ambala City through its Managing Director.

3.       M/s Deepak Electronic, Near Pilli Kothi, Ghanor Road, Ambala City through its Proprietor/Manager.

 

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.            

                  

 

Present:       Sh. S.S.Sikand, counsel for complainant.  

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.1.

OP No. 2 ex parte v.o.d.24.07.2017.

Ms. Nirmal Jeet Kaur, counsel for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant purchased one Samsung 230 Ltr. Refrigerator from the OP No.3 who is authorized distributor of the OP No.1 vide cash memo no.65 dated 18.06.2015 with five years warranty.  From the very beginning from the date of purchase there had been patent manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and the same was brought to the notice of the OP and their authorized complaint centre i.e. OP No.2 and they had repaired for many times but the refrigerator had not yet become properly functional which is causing immense tension to complainant. He had requested the Ops time and again to replace the refrigerator with new one to the OP No.3 and on the advice of OP No.3, the complainant had also approached the OP No.1 i.e. authorized complaint centre so many times but they also showed their inability to replace the refrigerator. The complainant also requested the OP No.1 who is manufacturer of refrigerator to replace the refrigerator but the OP No.1 is avoiding the same on one pretext or the other. Thus, the complainant has also suffered great mental agony and harassment at the hands of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Op No.2 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2017. Upon notice, OP No. 1appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the complaint of the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product. It is pertinent to mention here that alleged manufacturing defect cannot be determined don the simpliciter oral submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report.

Upon notice, OP No. 3 appeared through counsel and tendered written statement and stated that the refrigerator in question was not having manufacturing defect. At the time of purchase of Refrigerator in question by the complainant from the OP, it was working properly and moreover  the complainant had never complained about having any defect in its working to the OP since the date of purchase of Refrigerator. The refrigerator was perfectly alright at the time of its sale by the OP and the complainant might have not properly kept the same. So there is no deficiency in service on part of Ops and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.                         To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW-A with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-1/A and close his evidence. Counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/C and closed his evidence.

4.               We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is proved on the file that complainant had purchased one Samsung 230 Ltr. Refrigerator from the OP No.3 vide cash memo no.65 dated 18.06.2015 with 5 years warranty. The main grievance of the complainant in this case that the above said  refrigerator was not working properly and there is some defect in the said refrigerator from very beginning and complainant approached to the OP No.2 for removal of  the above said defect. Therefore, on his complaint, they had repaired for many times but the refrigerator had not yet become properly functional.  The complainant had approached to the Ops for rectify of his refrigerator but they did not rectified the above said defect. The complainant also lodged his complaint with OP No.2  and the OP No.2 has also sent reply through SMS vide Annexure C-6 to C-10 but they have not given the specific reply as to why refrigerator went again out of order within short period after rectified the same by the engineer of OP No.2.   

During the pendency of the case, the complainant moved an application for appointment of the some specialist expert to check the fridge regarding defect arose and same was allowed by this Forum v.o.d. 12.01.2018 and directed to the Hitesh Chawla, Lect. in Mech. Engg. Govt. Polytechnic, Ambala City v.o.d. to appoint an Expert person dealing with the problems of the home appliances. Accordingly, Sh.Hitesh Chawla, Lecturer, was appointed as Local Commissioner and LC has sent his report dated 06.07.2018 which as under: -

“Inspection of Refrigerator started at 11.00 AM on 02.07.2018 at the residence of Sh. Jaspal in the presence of him as well as service engineers from Samsung. It was found that the refrigerator was in working condition but the cooling was low. It was also found that the refrigerator was repaired in the past and a Drier alongwith capillary tube was changed for its repair. Since, the length and diameter of capillary tube has a major effect on the efficiency of refrigerator, its change might have caused low cooling.

Samsung service engineers claimed that the refrigerator is repairable, but they refused to repair it, since according to them the refrigerator was repaired from local market and the Drier along with capillary tube fitted in the refrigerator for its repair doesn’t belong to Samsung genuine parts”.

It was upon for the Ops to file objections if any against the report of LC but it has not been done so. The LC was appointed by this Forum and who had given his report impartially wherein he has mentioned in his report that the length and diameter of capillary tube has major effect on the efficiency of refrigerator, its change might have caused low cooling and it is repairable. In the present case, OP No.2/Service Centre which repaired the product in question number of times but time and again the refrigerator went out of order. Therefore, it was the duty of the service centre to provide after sale service to the product manufactured by OP No.1

6.                Therefore, the complainant has to approach to this Forum.   The report of Local Commissioner clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op Nos. 1 & 2 as they have failed to provide after sale service to the complainant.  

7.                          Keeping in view of the above said facts that Op Nos. 1 & 2 had failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and OP No.3 being a dealer has no role to play, therefore complaint against it stands dismissed.  In the present case the complainant neither satisfied with the functioning of the product in question nor the services which were to be provided by the OP Nos.1 & 2 after selling of the product, therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the OPs to rectify the defect in the refrigerator in question. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed against OP Nos. 1 & 2 with costs and the Ops are directed as under:-

1. The Ops are directed to rectify the defects of the refrigerator and make it working condition without charging any cost failing which the Ops would replace with the new one having equal value of the product. Compliance of this order be made within period of 30 days after receiving the copy of the order.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony  alongwith cost of litigation

 

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 24.07.2018                                

 

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                     President