Haryana

Karnal

CC/350/2017

Daya Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Kamboj

15 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.350 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 24.10.2017

                                                         Date of decision:15.10.2018

 

Daya Singh son of Shri Phool Singh resident of village Sheikhpura Sohana, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant       

                                        Versus

 

1. M/s Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. plot no.3, Avtar Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal Haryana through its prop.

2. Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. Service Centre of Telus Global Verifacts solution shop no.20,21,22, Asa Ram Market, Model Town, Karnal through its Customer Satisfaction Manager of Samsung India Pvt. Limited.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. registered address A-25, Ground floor, Front Tower, Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.                           

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr.Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present  Shri Sanjiv Kamboj Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OPs no.2 and 3.

               OP no.1 exparte.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased one piece Samsung fridge for consideration of Rs.13,500/-, vide cash memo no. Karnal/03110 dated 30.10.2016 from OP no.1 with one year warranty. The said fridge was manufactured by OP no.3. From the very beginning the said fridge was defective. The fridge was not working properly and not cooling in the fridge. Complainant approached the OP no.1 and complained about the same. OP no.1 sent the complainant to OP no.2 for lodging the complaint regarding the defect of said fridge. One mechanic of OP no.2 visited the house of complainant and inspected the fridge. He asked the complainant that they will not charge any amount but on the next visit they started demanding Rs.5000/- from the complainant regarding the defective fridge. OPs have sold the defective fridge having manufacturing defect to the complainant as despite repairs the defect could not removed by the mechanic of OP no.2. Complainant requested the OPs so many time to replace the defective fridge as it was within warranty period and beyond the repairs but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The defective fridge lying under OP no.2 till date. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.09.2017 in this regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 07.12.2017.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed their joint written version raising preliminary objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant approached the OPs regarding the defect in the fridge on 28.08.2017, vide call no.4243958504 after approximate ten months from the date of purchase of unit and reported no cooling issue in his unit. It is evident of the fact that the unit is working OK condition for ten months from the purchase. The engineer of the company visited the house of the complainant and thoroughly checked the unit and found that freezer portion of the unit was physically damaged/leaked due to mishandling/negligence on part of the complainant. The engineer of company told to the complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as company provides warranty of one year from the date of purchase of unit and warranty is subject to some conditions and one of the conditions is that if the unit got damaged due to mishandling, the warranty becomes void and in the case of complainant, unit got damaged due negligence/mishandling on the part of the complainant and accordingly gave the estimate of repair. But the complainant did not approve the estimate and started demanding free of cost/replacement for his unit and after that without any cause of action, filed the present complaint. It is further pleaded that company provides one year comprehensive warranty on the unit and four year warranty of the compressor of the unit and warranty means in case of any problem with the  unit, the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per warranty policy. The warranty of the unit is subject to some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:

1. Liquid logged/water logging 2. Physical Damage 3. Serial number missing 4. Tampering 5. Mishandling/Burnt etc.

It is further pleaded that OPs are ready to provide service to the complainant for his unit as per warranty policy i.e. paid repair, but the complainant is not ready to get his unit repaired as per conditions of warranty. It is further pleaded that OP is a renowned company in Electronics Products and home appliances and is manufacturing Electronic Products for the past several years. The technology used by OP in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated. Hence no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs arises. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 01.03.2018.

5.             On the other hand, OPs no.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11, Mark-A and closed their evidence on 17.7.2018.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant argued that on 30.10.2016, the complainant had purchased one Samsung fridge from OP no.1. The abovesaid fridge did not work properly and defected from the date of purchase. Complainant lodged the complaints many times to the OP no.2. One mechanic and engineer was sent by OP no.2 from the service centre. But no defect was removed and OP has sold the defective fridge to the complainant and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs no.2 and 3 argued that the defect alleged by the complainant cannot be determined on the simple submission of the complainant and need a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. The complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on the record any analysis test report and in the absence of technical report on record, complaint of the complainant deserve dismiss on this ground. The engineer of the company found that freezer portion of the unit was physical leaked due to mishandling on the part of the complainant. And as per the warranty card Ex.R1, condition no.21: Defects arising mishandling/misuse, improper ventilation, improper voltage, use of external material, normal wear and tear are not covered under the warranty and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

9.             Admittedly, on 30.10.2016 the fridge in question was purchased by the complainant from OP no.1. The defect occurred in the warranty period. The allegation of the OPs that complainant did not properly handle the fridge and due to that the defect was occurred in the fridge. There is no document or expert opinion that fridge in question was mishandled by the complainant. As per documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 there are defect in the backside of the fridge and as per document Ex.R7 and Ex.R9 there is no defect in the front and inner side of the fridge. The onus was upon the OPs to prove that how the complainant mishandled the fridge but OPs failed to prove the same.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the defective fridge of the same value. We further direct the OPs pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:15.10.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member