Date of filing:21.1.2013. Date of disposal:27.5.2013. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II: VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER. SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 C.C.No.17 of 2013 Between: Smt P.Veera Bhadravathi, W/o Late Sri P.Harihara Gopal Krishna Rao, 61 years, R/o 41-12-15A, Gundu Kotaiah Street, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Consumers’ Guidance Society, Having its registered and administration office at Flat No.1, 1st Floor, D.No.58-1-26, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010 . … Complainant. AND 1. Rajkamals Electronics, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, 27-14-62, Rajagopalachari Street, Near Buckinghampet Post Office, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 02 2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Branch Manager, Opp.Durga Mahal Theatre, Patamata, Vijayawada – 520 010. .… Opposite Parties. This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 24.5.2013 in the presence of Consumers’ Guidance Society, Rep., the complainant and of opposite party No.1 remained absent and Smt P.Padmaja, Counsel for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following: O R D E R (Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram) This is a complaint filed by complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the total sale consideration of Rs.15,400/- or alternatively to replace the defective refrigerator with a defect free one, direct the 2nd opposite party to comply with the terms and conditions of the warranty, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for other reliefs. 1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows: That the complainant purchased a Samsung 26YBUX model refrigerator on 19.10.2009 from the 1st opposite party for total consideration of Rs.15,400/- vide invoice No.1555 and that the 2nd opposite party is manufacturer. That the refrigerator purchased by complainant is under warranty period of 8 years coupled with an extended warranty of three more years. But the said refrigerator had become completely dysfunctional owing to defects in it even before 3rd year warranty and that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party with a request to replace the same, but the 1st opposite party paid deaf ear and that the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.13.8.2012 and the opposite parties after receipt of notice also failed to respond, but asked the complainant to deliver the refrigerator at their authorized service center and accordingly the complainant delivered the same and later the 2nd opposite party informed that the refrigerator was beyond repairs and agreed to refund the entire sale consideration and made the complainant to sign on some papers by representing that it was imperative to forward the same to head office and that subsequently none of them responded and the 2nd opposite party issued a reply dt.23.12.2012 directing the complainant to accept cheque for Rs.10,500/- and on that the complainant issued a rejoinder dt.7.1.2013 and the opposite party No.2 after receipt of same maintained silence. Hence, the complaint. 2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 1st opposite party was called absent. The 2nd opposite party filed version denying the material allegations of the complaint. It is contended that the warranty for refrigerator for 11 years is not correct and the warranty for refrigerator is only one year and the warranty for compressor is eight years. It is further contended that the defect is only with the body rust, but not with compressor. It is further contended that when the complainant approached this opposite party, the 2nd opposite party offered to pay the depreciated cost as per the company procedure and the complainant having accepted the offer signed on the depreciation acceptance letter dt.1.10.2012 and that the 2nd opposite party as per service policy processed the refund amount as Rs.8,624/- after deducting depreciation of 44%. It is further contended that the allegation that the complainant was made to sign on some papers on the pretext of processing the payment is not correct and the said fact was not mentioned in legal notices and finally prays to dismiss the complaint. 3. The complainant filed her affidavit reiterating the material averments of her complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. The Branch Manager of 2nd opposite party filed affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B6. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the defective refrigerator to complainant? ii) If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? POINT No.1 :- 6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to purchasing of refrigerator by complainant from 1st opposite party on 19.10.2009 under Ex.A1 invoice No.1555 for a sum of Rs.15,400/-. According to the complainant, the said refrigerator become dysfunctional and accordingly she made a complaint to the 2nd opposite party on 21.09.2012 under Ex.A2 service request, in which the defect is described as ‘no cooling’. But a careful perusal of Ex.A2, it contains the name of customer as one ‘PVSL Prasad, Andhra Jyothi Reporter’ and the date of purchase as ‘2.5.2010’, which is not belongs to the complainant herein. The complainant has not placed any material to show that Ex.A2 service request was made by her. But, on the other hand as seen from Ex.B1 marked on behalf of 2nd opposite party, the service request contains the name of complainant and date of purchase and the defect was mentioned as ‘body rust’. Further Ex.B2 Technical Report, dt.1.10.2012 also discloses the ‘current defect symptom’ as ‘Body rust not repairable’. In this regard, the contention of opposite party is that the refrigerator is only having one year complete warranty and the compressor is having four years warranty and it will be extended for further three years. Further Ex.A4 warranty card discloses the same and clause No.3 of Ex.A4 card discloses that the warranty covers only repairs arising due to compressor failure, but not any kind of replacement for the whole unit. As per the own version of complainant, she made complaint on 21.9.2012, where as she purchased the product on 19.10.2009. As such the refrigerator is having warranty from 19.10.2009 which ends on 18.10.2010. Further as seen from Ex.B1 and B2, the defect is only body rust, but not with compressor. As such the alleged defect is beyond warranty period. 7. Further as seen from the record, it is clear that the complainant has used the said product for three years without any defect and for the first time, she found defect on 21.9.2012. Ex.B2 discloses that the service technical people of 2nd opposite party attended the said complaint and issued technical report on 1.10.2012 itself stating that the defect is not repairable. Though the 2nd opposite party is not bound to repair the said defect, which is beyond warranty period, they made a proposal to pay the cost of refrigerator after deducting depreciation of 44% as per their rules and the complainant accepted for the same under Ex.B3. A perusal of Ex.B3, it is clear that the complainant has accepted to receive the amount after deducting 44% depreciation on Rs.15,400/- and subscribed her signature. In this regard, the contention of complainant is that her signature was obtained on white paper on the pretext of processing payment expeditiously. On the other hand, the opposite party No.2 is totally denying about obtaining of signature of complainant on Ex.B3. When the complainant is admitting her signature on Ex.B3, it is the bounden duty of complainant to prove that the said signature was obtained by 2nd opposite party people by playing fraud or coercion. But in this regard, the complainant has not placed any material to prove that the said signatures were obtained by fraud. Hence, there can be no hesitation in holding that the said signatures are belonging to complainant and that she accepted the said amount. Further Ex.B5 photocopy of cheque dt.11.10.2012 issued in the name of complainant discloses that an amount of Rs.8,624/- was processed after deducting 44% depreciation from Rs.15,400/- and Ex.B6 request letter discloses that the 2nd opposite party people requested the complainant to receive the said cheque. All the above circumstances mentioned supra clearly establish that the 2nd opposite party acted diligently in processing the claim of the complainant. The details of depreciation are available in the table given in Ex.B.4. The deduction of amount towards deprecation is tenable because the complainant has used the said product for three years. We also take into consideration the fact that the warranty over the entire unit had expired and the warranty extends only as regards the compressor. If the value of the compressor is individually takes and of depreciation is allowed, the amount offers looks appropriate. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant. But as the 2nd opposite party itself ready to pay the amount of Rs.8,624/- and in that regard also issued a cheque and as the complainant accepted to receive the amount, the 2nd opposite party is directed to issue a fresh cheque for Rs.8,624/- or revalidate the earlier cheque and hand over the same to complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any amount towards costs and compensation. POINT No.2:- 8. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly and the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount Rs.8,624/- (Eight thousand six hundred and twenty four rupees only) to the complainant by issuing a fresh cheque or revalidating the earlier cheque dt.11.10.2012 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant will receive the said cheque from the 2nd opposite party. The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed. Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 27th day of May, 2013. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For the complainant: For the opposite parties:- None None DOCUMENTS MARKED On behalf of the complainant: Ex.A.1 19.10.2009 Cash invoice issued by the 1st opposite party to the Complainant for Rs.15,400/- Ex.A.2 21.09.2012 Service request issued by Harish Enterprises, Service Center, Vijayawada. Ex.A.3 . . Warranty card for 6th, 7th and 8th years. Ex.A.4 . . Warranty card. Ex.A.5 13.08.2012 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.6 25.10.2012 Office copy of Reminder legal notice. Ex.A.7 23.12.2012 Reply notice from the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A.8 07.01.2013 Office copy of Rejoinder reply notice. For the opposite parties: Ex.B.1 21.09.2012 Service request issued by Harish Enterprises, Service Center, Vijayawada. Ex.B.2 01.10.2012 Photocopy of Technical Report. Ex.B.3 01.10.2012 Photocopy of Depreciation Acceptance Letter. Ex.B.4 . . Photocopy of Depreciation table. Ex.B.5 11.10.2012 Photocopy of Payment advice along with photocopy of cheque. Ex.B.6. 30.10.2012 Photocopy of Request letter for cheque receive. PRESIDENT | 
