DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2024
Filed on: 11/02/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 74/2019
COMPLAINANT
S. Joseph, S/o. C.C. Joseph (Smrithi Sagar), PBK Myna Road BMC P.O., North Vazhakkala, Cochin 682021.
(Rep. by Adv. P.U. Ziyad & Natalia Ziyad, P.U. ziyad & Associates, 41/2398, Railway Station Road, Ernakulam North, Kochi 682018)
Vs
THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Samsung Service Center, Meledom Tower, MKK Nair Road, Opp. To Axis bank, Palarivattom, Ernakulam 682025.
- Samsung India, Arya Bhangy Pinnacle, Sahodaran Ayyappan Road, Janatha, Thykoodam, Vyttila, kochi 682019.
(Rep. by Adv. K.S. Arundas, #35, DD Oceano Mall, Near Taj Gateway, Marine Drive, Ernakulam)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 16/01/2019, a service request (number 4276085652) was made for an out-of-warranty Samsung refrigerator with Samsung India, which was assigned to an authorized service center in Palarivattom, Kochi. The service issue remained unresolved for about 25 days, causing significant inconvenience and mental distress to the complainant's family. This lack of a functioning refrigerator particularly affected the family's daily routine and posed a health risk for the elderly parents who required refrigeration for their diabetes medication. Despite repeated calls and emails to Samsung's customer service and the service center personnel (Mr. Hemnath, Mr. Twintu, Technician, Allan, Binesh, etc.), there was no effective action taken to resolve the issue. The complainant emphasized the urgency of the repair but received no positive response or updates about the service request. Advised against using unauthorized service centers, the complainant felt compelled to eventually rely on an external private service agency, potentially compromising the refrigerator's condition. The complainant seeks compensation for the cost of the appliance (Rs. 113,200.00), as its longevity has been jeopardized, and for the mental agony, trauma, and harassment endured over the 25-day period. This situation highlights issues of customer service responsiveness, communication, and the impact of service delays on consumer well-being.
2) Notice
The commission issued notices to the opposite parties. Despite receiving theirs, the first opposite party failed to submit their version, leading to them being set ex-parte. The second opposite party, however, duly received the notice and submitted their version in response
3). VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY.
The complaint is unfounded and should be dismissed. Samsung claims that the defects in the refrigerator, which arose 9 years after purchase, are not manufacturing defects but likely due to mishandling or other reasons. They stated that the refrigerator's long-term use necessitates regular service and does not indicate manufacturing flaws.
Samsung states that when they arranged for the Dryer part's replacement, the complainant refused the service and demanded compensation instead. They emphasize that the refrigerator is beyond its warranty period, and under the warranty terms, replacement or compensation for long-term use is not covered.
The company cites legal precedents to support their stance that they are not obliged to replace the product in the absence of major manufacturing defects. They stated that the complaint is an abuse of legal process with ulterior motives, aimed at harassing and unlawfully gaining from Samsung. The compensation of Rs 1,13,200 sought by the complainant is deemed inappropriate, and Samsung seeks dismissal of the complaint, stating there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents that was marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A3. The complainant examined as PW1.
Exhibit A-1(Series): copies of the Gmail communications dated 28.01.2019, 3.02.2019.
Exhibit A-2: Printout out of the image of the replaced dryer filter.
Exhibit A-3: copy of the receipt for Rs.6,900/ issued by M / s REPAIR WORLD, incurred for the repair of the Refrigerator dated 21-10-2019.
The second opposite party had filed a proof affidavit and 2 documents.
1.Power of Attorney of the Authorized signatory - Mr Anup Kumar Mathur from Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
2.A copy of warranty terms and condition.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The copy of the receipt for Rs.6,900/ issued by M / s REPAIR WORLD, incurred for the repair of the Refrigerator dated 21-10-2019(Exhibit A-3). Hence, the complainant is consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The complaint centers on a malfunctioning high-end refrigerator purchased in 2010, which, despite its vital role in storing insulin for diabetic parents, experienced cooling issues in January 2019, leading to inadequate service, financial losses, and the refrigerator's replacement.Top of Form
We have heard from Sri. Ziyad, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. The complainant's high-end refrigerator, purchased in 2010, malfunctioned in January 2019 with decreased cooling. A complaint was registered on January 16, 2019. The refrigerator was crucial for storing insulin for the complainant's diabetic parents.
Despite registering the complaint, the response from the service provider was inadequate. Technicians visited but did not follow up, and despite the complainant's repeated requests, the refrigerator was not repaired. With no positive action from the service provider for about 30 days, the complainant resorted to third-party repair services, which further deteriorated the refrigerator's condition. The long malfunctioning, especially of the 'Drier' part, led to a significant decline in quality and functionality, forcing the complainant to replace it, incurring a substantial loss.
The second opposite party claimed that the warranty had expired and denied any obligation for free repair. They acknowledged the complaint but provided no details on the service rendered. The complainant does not allege a manufacturing defect but emphasizes the deficiency in service by the second opposite party. Despite their large network, the opposite parties failed to repair the refrigerator in a reasonable time, leading to its severe damage.
The second opposite party, Samsung India, responded to the complaint by stating that the warranty had long expired and there was no obligation to repair the refrigerator free of cost. They argued that the complainant never claimed the defect occurred during the warranty period. The first opposite party did not respond and was set ex-parte. Samsung admitted that a complaint was lodged for defects in the refrigerator but claimed that no manufacturing defect was found and asserted that proper service was provided, without detailing what service was rendered. The complainant's case focuses on the deficiency of service, alleging that despite Samsung's vast network, they failed to rectify the refrigerator's issues in a reasonable time, leading to severe damage and eventual replacement of the refrigerator. Evidence includes a service request and repeated intimations for repair. The warranty terms stated by Samsung were contested as irrelevant by the complainant, who did not seek free service or claim a manufacturing defect. The complaint argues for compensation based on Samsung's deficiency in service, as they failed to instruct the complainant not to use the refrigerator until repaired, leading to further damage. The complainant seeks Rs. 1,13,200, the cost of a new refrigerator of the same make as of 2019. The complaint is based on the Consumer Protection Act sections relating to faulty, imperfect, or inadequate service and the failure to issue adequate instructions or warnings. The complainant seeks compensation for the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, quantified at Rs. 1,13,200, the cost of a new refrigerator of the same make as of 2019. The summary encapsulates the grievances about poor service response, its impact on the appliance's functionality, and the legal grounds for seeking compensation.
We have also heard from Sri. K.S.Arundas, the learned counsel appearing for the second opposite party. He argues that the complaint lacks factual verification and reasonable due diligence, making it groundless and unsustainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Samsung, as a well-reputed company, manages a range of electronic appliances and operates from Gurgaon.
They contend that defects arising after 9 years of usage do not constitute manufacturing defects but could be due to mishandling or other reasons. When the service engineer inspected the refrigerator, it was found that the Dryer required service/replacement after 9 years of use. The part was ordered, but the complainant refused service upon its arrival, demanding compensation instead. Samsung emphasizes that the refrigerator is outside its warranty period and that long-term use necessitates service, not indicative of manufacturing defects.
Samsung cites rulings by the Supreme Court of India to support their argument that the absence of major or inherent manufacturing defects does not obligate them to replace the product. They contend that the allegations of unfair trade practices and service deficiency are an abuse of law for illegal gains and harassment.
Citing the warranty terms, Samsung asserts that repair or replacement after many years or compensation for the same is not covered. Any defects due to mishandling or which can be rectified do not warrant replacement, refund, or compensation. They accuse the complainant of filing the case with ulterior motives and malafide intentions, thus constituting an abuse of legal process.
In the case of C. N. Anantharam vs. Fiat India Ltd. & Ors., as ruled by the Honorable Supreme Court of India (AIR 2011 SC 523, 2011 1 SCC 460), it was established that if no major or inherent manufacturing defect exists in a vehicle and the reported problem has been resolved, the manufacturing company or its agent is not obligated to replace the vehicle. Additionally, in Bharathi Knitting vs. D.H.L. Worldwide (1996 4 SCC 704), the Supreme Court affirmed that parties are bound by specific terms stipulated in a contract.
The demand for compensation of Rs 1,13,200 is deemed inappropriate by Samsung and is argued to be dismissed based on the objections raised. The complaint is argued to be dismissed on the grounds of no service deficiency or unfair trade practice by OP No. 2, emphasizing that the refrigerator was out of warranty and no manufacturing defects were detected by the service center.
In summary, Samsung India argues for the dismissal of the complaint based on the lack of manufacturing defects, adherence to warranty terms, and the absence of any unfair trade practices or service deficiencies.
The first opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the first opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the first opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
Having considered the complaint, version, and arguments presented by both parties, the evidence provided, and relevant laws and judgments, the Commission hereby summarizes as follows:
The complainant alleges that they experienced a significant inconvenience and mental distress due to the prolonged unresolved service issue with their Samsung refrigerator, impacting their daily routine and posing a health risk for their diabetic parents. The complainant further seeks compensation for the cost of the appliance and the mental agony endured during the 25-day period.
i) Maintainability of the Complaint: Under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is defined as a person who buys goods or avails of services for a consideration. The complainant, having incurred expenses for the repair of the refrigerator, qualifies as a consumer. Hence, the complaint is maintainable.
ii) Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice: The complainant's case revolves around the deficiency in service provided by the second opposite party, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The complainant's refrigerator malfunctioned within the warranty period, and despite prompt complaint registration, the service response was inadequate. Technicians visited but did not resolve the issue, and repeated requests for repair were ignored. The complainant was forced to seek third-party repairs, which further deteriorated the refrigerator's condition. The long malfunctioning of the refrigerator, especially of the 'Drier' part, led to a significant decline in quality and functionality, ultimately requiring its replacement.
The second opposite party, Samsung India, claims that the defects are not manufacturing defects but likely due to mishandling or other reasons. They argue that the warranty had expired and there was no obligation for free repair. However, the complainant does not allege a manufacturing defect but emphasizes the deficiency in service by the second opposite party. Despite their large network, the opposite parties failed to repair the refrigerator in a reasonable time, leading to its severe damage.
In the case of C. N. Anantharam vs. Fiat India Ltd. & Ors., as ruled by the Honorable Supreme Court of India (AIR 2011 SC 523, 2011 1 SCC 460), it was established that if no major or inherent manufacturing defect exists in a product and the reported problem has been resolved, the manufacturing company or its agent is not obligated to replace the product. However, in the present case, the complainant's grievance is primarily related to the delay and inadequacy of service, not the presence of a manufacturing defect.
iii) Relief for the Complainant: Considering the facts of the case, it is evident that the complainant suffered a significant inconvenience and mental distress due to the prolonged unresolved service issue. Furthermore, they incurred expenses for third-party repairs, which were necessitated by the lack of timely and effective action by the second opposite party.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief for the deficiency in service and the financial losses incurred.
iv) Costs of the Proceedings: The first opposite party, despite being served with the notice, did not challenge the allegations made by the complainant. This conscious failure to file their written version is considered an admission of the allegations against them. As per legal precedent, this stance of the first opposite party is not credible. The costs of the proceedings, if any, shall be borne by the opposite parties, for their failure to provide timely and adequate service and for not submitting their version by the first opposite party despite receiving notice.
In the absence of a dedicated 'Right to Repair' legislation in India, there have been instances where the judiciary has intervened to address related concerns. For example, in the case of Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars Limited & Ors., the Competition Commission of India (CCI) explicitly affirmed that any anti-competitive actions undertaken by the automobile industry under the guise of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) would be terminated and declared void. This specific case centered around the issue of preventing consumers from exclusively purchasing goods or services from authorized car dealers. Another significant case, Sanjeev Nirwani v. HCL, established the legal obligation for companies to provide spare parts even beyond the warranty period. Failing to do so was recognized as an unfair trade practice.
Manufacturers often use persuasive advertising to encourage product purchases. However, a recurring issue emerges when these companies neglect their responsibility to provide necessary spare parts, and proper service affecting consumers across various product categories. This refusal to service the product forces consumers to discard functional products, constituting an unfair trade practice that boosts manufacturer profits by purchasing another product. This action on the part of manufacturer restricts consumer choices, adding financial burdens and contributing to environmental degradation through increased electronic waste.
We conclude that issues number I to IV are resolved in favor of the complainant due to significant service deficiencies on the part and unfair trade practices of the opposite parties. As a result, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial loss stemming from the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall pay ₹80,000 (Eighty Thousand Rupees only) to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices they committed. This amount covers the mental distress, physical inconvenience, financial losses, and the extended period during which the complainant endured without a working refrigerator.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant ₹20,000 (Twenty Thousand Rupees only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to fulfil the aforementioned directives within 30 days of receiving this order. Should they fail to comply, the amounts specified in point (i) will accrue interest at 9% per annum, calculated from the date of the complaint (11.02.2019) until the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 25th day of January, 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1(Series): copies of the Gmail communications dated 28.01.2019, 3.02.2019.
Exhibit A-2: Printout out of the image of the replaced dryer filter.
Exhibit A-3: copy of the receipt for Rs.6,900/ issued by M / s REPAIR WORLD, incurred for the repair of the Refrigerator dated 21-10-2019.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
kp/
Despatch date:
By hand:
by post:
C.C. No. 74/2019
Order date: 25/01/2024
