Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/122/2015

M/s.S.Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s.Maheshwaraiah

23 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 23^rd   DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.122/2015

 

 

Mr.S.Rajesh,

S/o.Mr.N.Sukumaran Nair,

No.23, 2^nd Cross Street,

Gopal Colony, Agaram,

Chennai – 600 082.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Regional Office, Rep. by Regional Manager,

No.24, Rajasekaran Street,

Near: Doctor Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

 

2. M/s. Jayam & Co., Rep.by Manager,

AA-147, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

3. M/s. Sunbeam Electronic,

Rep. by Manager,

No.223, M.R.Nagar, 3^rd Main Road,

Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 116.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 17.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : N.Maheswaraiah, M/s.T.V.Vineeth

                                                                    Kumar, R.Sudalaimani &

                                                                    R.Venkataramani

 

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                : M/s.V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : M/s.C.Sivanesan,

                                                                  M.Baskaran,N.Deepanandh

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                      : Ex – Parte (01.02.2016)

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the defective refrigerator with new one and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has purchased a Samsung Refrigerator [Model No.RT-33FAJFALX] manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party from the 2^nd Opposite Party on 28.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.29,200/- vide credit Invoice No.A-Cr.4843 dated 28.10.2013.

          2. The said Refrigerator stopped functioning from May 2015 and the Complainant after giving repeated complaints to the 1^st Opposite Party, he sent some service persons.  On 28.06.2015 one of the employee of the 3^rd Opposite Party inspected the Refrigerator and stated that the Compressor is defective and he replaced the same with new one and the same is covered under the warranty, the said Service Engineer also collected an amount of Rs.500/- from the Complainant towards charges for refilling the gas in the compressor. Immediately after the gas is filled the whole house, where the Complainant and his family members consisting of his parents and two niece started feeling uncomfortable with breathing problems and both of his niece started vomiting.  They were treated in a nearby hospital for nausea.  The Complainant and the other family members got panicked and immediately contacted the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties instructed the Complainant to switch off the Refrigerator and not to use the same till they come and attend for the same.

          3. On 30.06.2015 again some of the Engineers came and inspected the Refrigerator and stated that the cooling coil is defective and they want to change the cooling coil and collected another sum of Rs.1500/- form the Complainant.  The main components of the said Refrigerator are the Compressor and the cooling coil.  Both the Compressor and cooling coil are defective; the Complainant has been sold with a defective Refrigerator with manufacturing defects.  The Complainant issued legal notice dated 06.07.2015 and the same was received by the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties and however the notice sent to the 1^st Opposite Party was returned as left without intimation.  The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties have not replied to the legal notice and they failed to replace the product and thereby committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complaint filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the defective refrigerator with new one and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

 

 

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party states that from 28.10.2013 till about 28.6.2015 there was no service Complaint from the Complainant with regard to the functioning of the refrigerator would clearly establish that there was no defect in the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant.  On 26.6.2015 the 1^st Opposite Party had received the service Complaint wherein, it was complained that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was not working properly and the cooling effect was not there. Immediately the 3^rd Opposite Party has send the service engineers and had inspected the refrigerator and it was found that the compressor and dryer needs to be replaced and accordingly the compressor and dryer of the refrigerator was replaced without any charges and there was no cooling gas in the refrigerator the same was also filled up. Thus the Opposite Parties had acted swiftly and there is no deficiency of service on their part.   

5. The 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party has charged a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards replacement of the cooling coil however the Complainant had refused to pay the charges for replacement and was insisting on replacement of the entire refrigerator from the date of purchase of the refrigerator.  In this regard the 1^st Opposite Party respectfully states that as per terms of the warrant the service would be provided to the refrigerator and the replaceable parts would be replaced with a new one and only in the event of the parts cannot be replaced or the products cannot be serviced, the purchaser is entitled for the replacement of the product.

6. There is no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant and the Opposite Party have replaced the compressor and dryer of the refrigerator without any charges by itself would clearly establishes that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, further cooling coil is not covered under the warranty and therefore the opposite parties are entitled to charge for the same and thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

7. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The Complainant purchased the refrigerator from this Opposite Party and however this Opposite Party is not responsible for any defect in the product.  This Opposite Party is only a seller and he did not give any warranty on behalf of the manufacturer.  Therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service to the Complainant and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

          8. The 3^rd Opposite Party called absent and set ex-parte.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1        

          The Complainant has purchased a Samsung refrigerator
RT 33FAJFALX from the 2^nd Opposite Party on payment of Rs.29,200/- under Ex-A1 invoice which was manufactured by the 1^st Opposite Party.  Ex-A2 is the user manual for the product purchased by the Complainant.  

          11. The case of the Complainant is that the refrigerator stopped functioning from May 2015 and after giving repeated complaints to the 1^st Opposite Party, on 28.06.2015 the 3^rd Opposite Party employee, on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party inspected the product and found that the compressor is defective and replaced with new compressor and the same is covered under the warranty and also paid a sum of Rs.500/- towards the filling the gas and immediately after the gas filled  the persons inside the house had breathing problem and they visited nearby hospital for nausea and again some other engineers came and found that the cooling coil is defective and they want to change the cooling coil and collected a sum of Rs.1,500/- for that purpose and both the compressor and cooling coil are defective and the product sold to him with manufacturing defects and consequently the Complainant unable to use the product and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

          12. The 1^st Opposite Party would contented that the warranty for the product is one year and for compressor for five years and since the compressor is within the warranty period the same was replaced and the cooling coil is only a spare and the defect noticed nearly after one year eight months and therefore such spare not covered under warranty and therefore the service engineer demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- to replace the cooling coil spare  and however the Complainant demanded to replace the product with new one and the same could be possible only non availability of spare parts or unable to repair and however in the case in hand the 1^st Opposite Party men willing to replace the spare and that was not permitted by the Complainant and hence the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

          13. Ex-A3 receipt dated 28.6.2015 is the proof for replacement of compressor and filling gas.  So, Ex-A3 is the 1^st service record and therefore from the date of purchase on 28.10.2013 to till the 1^st Complaint i.e., more than one and half year the product was working in good condition.  Ex-A4 service record dated 30.6.2015 issued by the service engineer that cooling coil leak and the same has to be replaced at the cost of Rs.1,500/-.  The Complainant in the said record endorsed that fridge to be replaced. 

14. According to the Opposite Parties the Complainant had not permitted their service engineer to replace the cooling coil.  The warranty card is available at Ex-A2, page 24 of the Complainant’s documents.    The warranty provides for the replacement of parts in 12 months and for replacement of compressor in 60 months. The compressor was replaced with in the warranty period at free of cost.  Whereas the cooling coil defect was found beyond the warranty period of 12 months and hence the service engineer demanded Rs.1,500/-  is correct in terms of warranty.  However the Complainant had not permitted the service engineer to replace the cooling coil and on the other hand he endorsed the service record for replacement of product.  Normally, the product could be replaced only when the manufacturing defect in the product is established.  After replacement of compressor no manufacturing defect shown by the Complainant in the product by way of acceptable evidence.  The complainant merely pleaded in the Complainant that the product is having manufacturing defect is not accepted.  Therefore, the Complainant has not proved that the product is having manufacturing defect warrants replacement of the product purchased by him and hence it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have not committed any deficiency in service. 

15. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the same is liable to dismissed.

 

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.10.2013                   Credit Invoice

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     User Manual

Ex.A3 dated 28.06.2015                   Cash Receipt

Ex.A4 dated 30.06.2015                   Customer Service Record Card

Ex.A5 dated 06.07.2015                   Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the

                                                     Opposite Parties & Receipts

 

Ex.A6 dated 07.07.2015                   Return Cover

Ex.A7 dated 07.07.2015                   Acknowledgement Card received from the 2^nd

 & 13.07.2015                              Opposite Party  India post – R Net Tracking

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                                ……… NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT