Date of Filing: 30-08-2017
Date of Order:01 -10-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Tuesday, the 1st day of October, 2019
C.C.No.400 /2017
Between
Syed Qamar Hasan S/o.Late Syed Khursheed Hasan
Aged about 71 years, Occupation Journalist
R/o.69 HUDA Heights, Breeze Apartments
No.4, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt.Ltd.,
Block ‘B’, Sector 81, NOIDA
UTTAR PRADESH -201 305
Rep. by its Managing Director
- M/s. Samsung Digital Home
6-3-456/C, Ground floor, MGR Estate
Dwarakapuri Colony, Punjagutta,
Hyderabad
Rep. by its General Manager
- M/s. R.Logic Technology Services (I) Pvt.Ltd.,
Authorized Samsung Customer Service Plaza
Plot No.40-43 & 54-57 Kavuri Hills, Phase 3
Madhapur, Below Hotel Utsav
Guttala Begumpet Village
Hyderabad – 500 081
Rep. by its General Manager ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr. P.Panduranga Rao
Counsel for the opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Bhaskar Poluri
Opposite party No.2&3 : Absent
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 alleging that the opposite parties have sold Refrigerator with defective manufacturing which amounts to unfair trade practice hence for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the spare parts required to rectify the defect and refund an amount of Rs.10,482/- collected by opposite party No.3 as the authorized service centre of product, award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical sufferings and further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental sufferings to the complainant and a direction to opposite parties to discontinue the unfair trade practice in future to the complainant and other reliefs which are permissible in law.
- The complaint averments in brief are that opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the SAMSUNG product , opposite party No.2 is the wholesale and retail seller of the said product and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service centre of the same. On 9-7-2012 complainant purchased a Refrigerator and LED TV both manufactured by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 retail seller under a common invoice for a total sum of Rs.53,000/-. Ever since the date of purchase Refrigerator is not working properly and till 29-6-2017 it was in same condition. Earlier the complainant lodged a complaint with opposite party No.3 on 18-05-2017 informing defective functioning of Refrigerator. Thereupon opposite party No.3 assured to rectify the defect but he failed. The complainant sent mails to the toll free Number of opposite party No.3 about the said problems. The complainant took the Refrigerator to opposite party No.3 in the month of June 2017 and after attending some repairs opposite party No.3 collected a sum of Rs.5,934/- under receipt No.44874 dated 6-6-2017. After that Refrigerator continued to give same problems. Hence for 2nd time complainant took the same to opposite party No.3 on 29-6-2017 and at that time opposite party No.3 collected a sum of Rs.4,548/- under receipt No.45864/- dt.29-6-2017.Thus opposite party No.3 collected a total sum of Rs.10,482/- towards charges for service and replacing the spare parts. Despite that the Refrigerator continued to give problems in its functioning. At the time of purchase the Refrigerator was given warranty of one year and compressor for five years. Though the product is within the warranty period opposite party No.3 collected huge amounts towards cost of repairs and it amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is working as Bureau Chief of a widely circulated daily English Newspaper published from Dubai and his family is well known and he used to have frequent guests. During the Ramzan also Refrigerator gave problems and it effected the parties organized by the complainant during said period. Complainant got issued a letter and same was replied by opposite party but the defective problem continued. Complainant also got issued a legal notice on 11-7-2017 to which a reply was given stating that highest level of service is being provided to the customers but the problem of working of Refrigerator continued to be same. Hence the present complaint.
- Opposite party No.1 alone filed a written version admitting sale of the subject Refrigerator to the complainant through opposite party No.2 retailer but denied the allegation of sale of a defective product to the complainant.
The stand of the opposite party No.1 in the written version is that the complainant purchased two products from opposite party No.2 authorized dealer as per the records and the cash bill dated 9-7-2012. The products manufactured by opposite party No.1 are guaranteed for certain period through warranty card issued to the purchaser containing terms and conditions. The Refrigerator purchased by the complainant was installed and demonstrated to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant with warranty card. The product was purchased on 9-7-2012 and same is out of warranty by the time complainant approached the authorized service centre. Hence opposite party No.3 as authorized service centre repaired the Refrigerator and collected charges payable since the product is out of warranty. The complainant except using the vague description of the working of the product as not working normally did not specify the nature of manufacturing defect during period from the date of purchase to the date of 1st repair on 29-6-2017. Hence it is evident that the product is not having manufacturing defect. Since the product was out of warranty period charges were collected by the authorized service centre as per the terms and conditions of purchase and warranty. The repairs were attended soon after the product was brought to the servicing centre by the complainant . Repairs were done and compressor and main PCB were replaced and gas charging was done in the unit on payment of repair charges by the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect to the Refrigerator purchased by the complainant as such the allegation of the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is false and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reproducing the contents of the complaint and got exhibited seven (7) documents. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of Sri Anup Kumar Mathur stated to be Director –Technical support -customer satisfaction got filed and through him format of warranty is got exhibited. Complainant alone filed written arguments.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could make out a case of either unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: The complainant’s case is he purchased Refrigerator along with LED TV on 9-7-2012 and Ex.A1 invoice evidences it. Though the complainant referred in the complaint that at the time of purchase he was informed that the Refrigerator is having a warrantee of one year and compressor for 5 years did not file the warranty issued to him. The complainant is conveniently silent as to whether the warranty card duly signed by the dealer was issued to him or not. The complainant vaguely alleged that the Refrigerator not functioning normally what does mean of normal function is not properly explained by him. If his allegation of non-functioning normally right from the date of purchase is to be true certainly he would have taken the product to the authorized service centre and intimated to the opposite party No.1&2 either by way of a letter or by way of a mail informing that the product is not functioning normally from the date of purchase. For the first time even according to the complainant he took the subject Refrigerator to opposite party No.1 on 6-6-2017 and earlier to that he claims to have lodged a complaint on 18-5-2017 with opposite party No.3 but the copy of the said letter has not seen the light of the day. The complainant also has referred about the receiving of a reply to the said letter but the copy of the same is also not filed. The complainant filed only two cash receipts under Ex.A2 &A3 issued by opposite party for the charges for the attending repairs . Ex.A4 is the copy of the legal notice and Ex.A5 is reply to it. In Ex.A4 legal notice also the complainant stated that the Refrigerator is not working in a normal manner since purchase and he was assured of a visit by technical team and it has not happened. If really the product did not function normally the complainant would not have waited for more than five (5) years from the date of purchase. Even according to the complainant himself he lodged a first complaint on18-5-2017 to opposite party No.1&2 so i.e, nearly five years after the purchase. So it is evident that for five (5) consecutive years the product functioned without a problem for the complainant. In the reply notice Ex.A5 the opposite party categorically explained that the product is no more in standard warranty term of one year and five (5) years warranty only on compressor and no charges for the part of compressor has been collected from the complainant. Even Ex.A2 and A3 cash receipts issued by opposite party does not disclose collecting of any amount either for replacing or repairing of compressor to the Refrigerator. What all the amount collected by opposite party No.3 are for other spare parts which were not under warranty by the time complainant took subject Refrigerator to opposite party No.3. The very fact that the complainant could not explain the specific defect in the Refrigerator speaks volumes of falsity in the allegation of defectively manufactured the product. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
Point No.2: Since the complainant could not establish either unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties he is not entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 1st day of October , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- Cash/Credit bill dated 09-07-2012
Ex.A2- cash receipt dt.06-06-2017
Ex.A3-cash receipt dt.29-06-2017
Ex.A4- office copy of legal notice dt.11-07-2017
Ex.A5- reply notice dt.31-07-2017
Ex.A6- postal receipt dt.11-07-2017
Ex.A7- acknowledgment
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party No.1
Ex.B1-Samsung product warranty information
MEMBER PRESIDENT
