Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/154/2016

N.Meenal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramakrishna Appliances - Opp.Party(s)

T.M.Manoharan

18 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  30.08.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  29.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER

 

TUESDAY  THE 29^th DAY OF JANUARY 2019

 

C.C.NO.154/2016

 

N.Meenal,

W/o.Mr.N.Nachiappan,

No.172, Washer Varadappa Maistry Street,

New Washermanpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

                                                                                                  …..Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Ramakrishna Appliances,

Rep by its Manager,

No.366/1, Thiruvotriyur High Road,

Old Washermanpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 03.10.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.T.M.Manoharan&M.Rajeswari

 

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s.M.Murugesan, V.Srikanth,

                                                                     P.Suriyanarayanan&A.Kalidas

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  u/s 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite party to  rectify the defects  and to replace the defective piece by another brand new refrigerator of Samsung  and to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and costs.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had purchased a Samsung make refrigerator from the opposite party’s showroom on 11.01.2015, vide product  description PR2315TCAPX/TL-REF-DC-S No 09374ZAF900049, for Rs.17,117.90 plus applicable VAT. The refrigerator was not properly working from the day one of its purchase. The freezer part of the gadget is also not working at all right from the day of its purchase and the very purpose behind the purchase of refrigerator is defeated in view of the sale of defective piece by the opposite party. The complainant intended to use the refrigerator to the fullest during the peak summer season where the need for the use of refrigerator is at high and therefore purchased the same, right before the summer season. The complainant also states that contrary to the same the refrigerator is not at all slowing down the activities and thereby the goods perished well before its longevity. With a view to rectify the defects in the defective piece by the opposite party the complainant had sent complaints after  complaints on 05.09.2015, 14.09.2015, 22.09.2015, 28.11.2015 and 08.12.2015 apart from sending a letter dated 04.12.2015 respectively to the opposite party. But all those representation in the form letter to rectify the defects in the defective piece and to replace the defective gadget remained only in paper and did not yield any response whatsoever. The complainant humbly submits that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator through the complainant’s hard earned money. It is the duty of the every service provider and the seller to make sure that they provide the reasonable service and products respectively and on contrary to which the opposite party herein remains ‘Nil admirai’ about both quality of product and the after sale service of rectifying the defects or replacing the defective piece of gadget. Therefore, the complainant is left with no other option but to seek the assistance of this  Hon’ble forum to redress the complainant’s grievances against the opposite party.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complaint must prove that the purchased refrigerator was not properly working from the day one of its purchase when the complainant has not known the mechanism of refrigerator. The complainant accepted to purchase the refrigerator and this opposite party  delivered the goods in condition.  The complainant used the goods for 8 months and the complaint was given on 05.09.2015. Thereafter 04.12.2015 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party in this regard. So once  the goods are delivered in  condition, if there is any  service, the Samsung  company is liable to rectify the same.  The complainant had not given any notice or letter to the Samsung Company and the opposite party had given direction to the complainant to approach the Samsung Service Centre. The company technician had given a service and rectified the problem. The technician went on 05.09.2015 to the complainant’s house to rectify the problem and refrigerator was working properly and there was no problem in the refrigerator. The complainant has not impleaded company as the opposite party in the complaint and also Samsung Service Centre. The opposite party is only seller of the goods to the complainant. The opposite party was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The opposite party has not done any deficiency in service to the complainant and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4. POINT NO :1 

          The  case of the complainant is that he purchased Samsung make Refrigerator from the opposite party’s show room on 11.01.2015. According to him, the freezer point of the gadget in the refrigerator and also the refrigerator was not working and the very purpose of its purchase was defeated in view of defective piece and the representation made to rectify the defect or to replace did not yield any response.

            5. Ex.A1 is the purchase invoice dated 11.01.2015. Legal notice of the complainant and its reply from opposite party  are Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. On the side of the opposite party Ex. B1 Sales invoice and Ex.B2 to Ex.B5 Customer service record from Samsung service station and Ex.B6 is the reply notice by opposite party  is filed. The purchase of the refrigerator by the complainant in opposite party’s showroom is not denied and it is said that the opposite party  had directed the complainant to register the complaint to the Samsung service center. It is also admitted by opposite party  that the service technician had visited the residence of the complainant on 05.09.2015 itself for service and the problem was rectified. It is answered in the reply dated 08.04.2016 in Ex.A3(Ex.B6) to the complainant’s notice dated 31.03.2016 vide Ex.A2.The reply is not opposed through rejoinder by the complainant. The purchase of the refrigerator was on 11.01.2015 and the complaint was only on 05.09.2015 as per records. There is no opportunity for the complainant to give complaint after 8 months of its purchase, if the refrigerator was not working from the day one of its purchase as alleged by the complainant. It would have been unused and kept idle for 8 months and also there is no report of the technician is filed to prove that the purchased refrigerator is a defective one. Hence the allegations in the complaint as the refrigerator is defective is not proved by the complainant.

           6.  Ex.B3 to Ex.B5 reports reflects the setting right of the repair and the service done by Samsung customer service.  Even though the complainant has not come forward to argue the matter, he has not denied the service records filed by the opposite party in his written argument and there is also no proof filed by the complainant for his letter dated 04.12.2015.  As on record, the repair was set right by Samsung service centre. The opposite party is only a seller of goods not a service provider. There is no proof filed by the complainant that the defective refrigerator is supplied to him. Moreover the complainant has not impleaded the Samsung Company or its service centre against whom he alleges for the replacement or rectification to be carried out.

  7. So far the opposite party is concerned, opposite party  is only a seller and he has not provided  any service to the complainant and  as discussed above alleged manufacturing defect  is also not substantiated and  this forum finds no deficiency in service on the  part of opposite party as alleged by the complainant and point No.1 is answered  against the complainant.

 

 

 

8. POINT NO:2

As per the discussions held by us in the earlier point and in view of the same, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and this point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complainant is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th   day of January 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 11.01.2015                   Copy of Invoice – Purchase of Refrigerator

Ex.A2 dated 31.03.2016                   Legal Notice by the complainant

Ex.A3 dated 08.04.2016                   Reply Notice by opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 11.01.2015                   Sales Invoice

 

Ex.B2 dated 19.09.2015                   Customer Service Record Card

 

Ex.B3 dated 28.11.2015                   Customer Service Record Card

 

 

 

Ex.B4 dated 08.12.2015                   Customer Service Record Card

 

Ex.B5 dated 09.12.2015                   Customer Service Record Card

 

Ex.B6 dated 08.04.2015                   opposite party  reply notice

 

 

                                               

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT