Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1122/2015

Dina Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shree Ganesh Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sonu Singla

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                   

                                                Complaint No.  1122

                                                Instituted on:    21.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       28.06.2016

 

Dina Nath son of Shri Mohar Chand, C/o Flora Nursery, Near IBP Petrol Pump, Barnala Road, Village Badrukhan, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Shree Ganesh Traders (Authorised Dealer of Samsung), Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Prop/Partner.

2.             Jaispy Service Centre (Authorised Service Centre of Samsung Company), Near CL Tower, Nankiana Road, Sangrur.

3.             Samsung India Electronics Limited, B-1A, Sector 81, Phase-II, Noida (UP) through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sonu Singla, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri  J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dina Nath, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Samsung refrigerator for Rs.24,500/- from OP number 1 vide invoice number 10346 dated 7.3.2012, which was having a warranty of five years.  It is further averred that on 21.8.2015, the refrigerator stopped cooling, as such, the complainant approached OP number 1 and the OP number 1 advised the complainant to approach OP number 2, who is the service centre of OPs, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 22.8.2015. Accordingly on 22.8.2015, the OP number 2 checked the refrigerator in the premises of the complainant and after checking, it was told by OP number 2 that the compressor and some other parts of the refrigerator in question are not working properly and the same needs replacement on payment of charges of Rs.1850/-. It is further averred that on 24.8.2015, the mechanic of the OP checked the refrigerator and replaced the compressor and other parts and during repairs, the interior plate on which lamps are not fixed properly, then the complainant requested him to fix the plate properly, as such the engineer of the OP fixed the plate forcibly, but failed to fix the plate properly and lastly tried to fix the plate with screw driver and due to this a large hole in the plastic body was occurred and due to that reason the water started to flow from the body of the refrigerator, as such the complainant apprised the problem to OP number 2. It is stated further that due to that defect the refrigerator is lying unused since 3.9.2015 and as such the complainant approached the Ops so many times to remove the grievance, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.24,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OPs number 1 and 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 2 were  proceeded exparte on 24.11.2015.

 

3.             In the reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. It is stated that the refrigerator in question is out of warranty as it was purchased on 7.3.2012 and warranty for entire refrigerator is only for one year and additional four years warranty is for the compressor only. The problem of cooling in the refrigerator arose on 21.8.2015. It is stated that as the compressor was under warranty, as such, the same was replaced with a new one and the refrigerator was made fully functional. It is stated that OP number 2 wrote letter dated 18.09.2015 sent through registered post calling him to take back the refrigerator, that the complaint is false and frivolous one. It is stated further that the complainant has sought the refund of the amount after expiry of warranty period, thus the repair was chargeable. As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied. On merits, it is admitted that the refrigerator was purchased from OP number 1.  It has been further admitted that the complainant lodged the complaint with Ops regarding cooling problem on 21.8.2015, as such, the refrigerator was checked on 22.8.2015 and the refrigerator was made in working order after replacement of the compressor of the refrigerator. Lastly, it has been stated that the refrigerator of the complainant is perfectly working and lying with OP number 2 and complainant can take back the same on any working day within working hours and the complainant is also liable to pay labour charges of Rs.1850/-.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of expert report, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of emails, Ex.C-7 copy of notice, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-10 copy of bill, Ex.C-11 copy of letter dated 8.9.2015, Ex.C-12 copy of reply dated 15.9.2015, Ex.C-13 copy of letter dated 18.9.2015, Ex.C-14 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-19 photographs, Ex.C-20 copy of receipt dated 30.09.2015 and close evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit along with annexure Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-2 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.               Ex.C-10 is the copy of the invoice dated 07.03.2012 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the refrigerator in question for Rs.24,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question and availed the services of the OP number 1.

7.             In the present case, it is on record that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question only on 7.3.2012 which was having one year warranty and for five years warranty on the compressor from the date of purchase of the same. It is an admitted fact that the problem of cooling arose in the refrigerator on 21.8.2015 within the warranty period of the compressor, as such, the OPs replaced the compressor of the refrigerator.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that during repairs and while fixing the plate on the refrigerator, the engineer of the Ops fitted the place on the refrigerator forcefully with the screw driver, resulting the hole in the plastic body of the refrigerator due to the negligence of the mechanic of the OPs, and as such the complainant has sought refund of the price of the refrigerator and to support such a contention, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and the report of expert Ex.C-3.  On the other hand, the Ops have denied this fact that the hole in the body occurred due to the negligence of the engineer of the OPs.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that the hole in the body of the refrigerator was due to the negligence of the engineer of the OPs.  It is on record that the warranty of the refrigerator had already expired and it is only the compressor, who was within the warranty period and the Ops accordingly replaced the compressor of the refrigerator free of cost.  To support such a contention, the OPs have also produced an affidavit of Anindya Bose, Ex.OP1/1. Ex.R-2 is the copy of letter sent by the OP number 2 to the complainant to take delivery of the refrigerator in question after payment of Rs.1850/- for conducting the necessary repairs of the refrigerator. But, the complainant never turned to get the delivery of the refrigerator in question and filed the present complaint before this Forum. As such, we find that there was no complaint of the complainant in respect of the refrigerator in question during the warranty period of one year, more so when the OPs have admittedly, replaced the compressor of the refrigerator in question free of cost.  In the circumstances, we find that it is not a case of deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 28, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member