District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.621/2021.
Date of Institution: 06.12.2021.
Date of Order: 22.08.2022.
Umesh Pandey, 554, Sector-37, Amar Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana – 121003. Mob. 9810291115 Mail:apexdelhi@hotmail.com.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Rocking Deals Pvt. Ltd., 12/3, Mile Stone, Opp. Sarai Metro Station, Sector-37, Faridabad, Haryana 121003. GSTIN: 06AAICR06553F1ZK. Mail:cs@rockingdeals.in.
2. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. GSTIN: 07AAACS5123K1ZF, Mail:support.india @samsung.com.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Complainant Umesh Pandey in person.
Opposite party No.1 exparte vide order dated 12.04.2022.
Sh. K.S.Rathore, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased
a refrigerator of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., make Model No. 465LRT47T635ESL SS3S bearing serial NO. 0SW64DAR300294K for a consideration of Rs.35146/- on 05.11.2021 manufactured by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. SC/28865. The complainant on 05.11.2021 requested Authorized Service centre managed by opposite party No.1 & requested Demo & installation, On 06th November 2021 service centre found the fridge was damaged & requested damaged parts from the stores/central agency. On 11th November 2021 authorized service centre got the requested parts & informed complainant that the refrigerator was damaged & above arts could not be fitted & refrigerator was irreparable, failed in installed & demo. Service centre refused to offer services for the defective product & advised to refund defective refrigerator. The complainant being a law-abiding citizens requested opposite party No.1., opposite party No.2 & Bajaj Finnce to collect the defective irrepairable refrigerator vide emails 11.11.2021, 13.11.2021, 15.11.2021, 16.11.2021, 22.11.2021, 24.11.2021, 25.11.2021, 26.11.2021 27.11.2021, various phone calls to Javed ji, Mr. Nishant Ji, various whatsapp message, text messages, speed post No. EH791004715IN. The opposite party No.2in mail dated 16.11.2021 at 16:26 hrs. had clearly mentioned the fridge was irreparable, but silent on return or replacement & opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2 want to sell defective & damaged product to the innocent complainant. The complainant approached National Consumer helpline vide grievance no. 3117096 but no action/help form them. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to:
a) opposite party should collect the defective material & refund the cost of refrigerator to the Finance Company (Bajaj Finance) refund transportation charges of Rs.2000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of invoice i.e from 5th November 2021.
b) return delivery charges of Rs.1000/- & pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards demurrage/storing the fridge.
c) pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
d) pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 not received back either served or unnerved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that item delivery confirmed. One month period had been expired. Further wait was not justified. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2022.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. It was further submitted that the unit had been duly checked by the engineer of service center of answering opposite party and same had been found damaged (left leg of the unit was found broken & damaged) and as per warranty policy conditions, the unit was out of warranty but knowing well the all circumstances the complainant has made false story just only to grab illegal benefits of his wrong. The answering opposite party company provides one year standard warranty period for his units and also the said standard warranty if subject to some conditions and one of the condition was that, if the unit got damaged the warranty becomes void. And same was the case in hand of complainant. The unit was out of warranty due to (left leg break/damaged). The complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal on this score. In fact, a request for installation of the unit in question was received to the answering company on 05.11.2021 and a call was got registered by the answering opposite party vide call No. 4335976087 and the engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant for installation of the unit. The engineer, at that time, found that the left leg of the unit was broken & damaged (left leg break/damaged) also found that the said leg of the unit was not repairable. The engineer told to the complainant that the unit of the complainant was not repairable. The engineer told to the complainant that the unit of the complainant was out of warranty due to damage and the unit was not repairable. But the complainant started making false allegations and started demanding replacement/refund for the unit.Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Rocking Deals Ltd. with the prayer to a) opposite party should collect the defective material & refund the cost of refrigerator to the Finance Company (Bajaj Finance) refund transportation charges of Rs.2000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of invoice i.e from 5th November 2021. b) return delivery charges of Rs.1000/- & pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.10,000/- towards demurrage/storing the fridge. c)pay Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. d) pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Umesh Pandey,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Sandeep Sahiwani C/o Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th floor, DLF Centre, Sansad marg, Near Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, Ex.R1 – Warranty card,, Ex.R-2 – Customer Service Record Card, Ex.R-3 – photograph.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri K.S.Rathore, counsel for the opposite party No.2 has made a statement that “we are ready to refund the invoice amount without GST.”
On the other hand, complainant Umesh Pandey has made statement that “I only press for the replacement of the defective unit without costs.”
7. After going through the evidence led by both the parties as well as statement of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.2 is directed to refund the invoice amount along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization and to pay Rs. 2200/- on account of mental agony as well as harassment. Taxable amount will not be given to the complainant. No litigation expenses has been given to the complainant because the complainant himself is pursuing the case. The complainant is directed to hand over the old refrigerator to the opposite party No.2 after receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on:22.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
