BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sartej Singh Narula, (Advocate), son of Late Sh.Daljit Singh Narula, resident of H.No. 23, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  Samsung Electronics Company Limited, through its Managing Director, 6^th Floor, IFCI Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019

2.  Samsung Electronics Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No. 4-5, Sector 8C, Chandigarh.

3.  M/s Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd, SCO No.1112, Sector 22B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director

                            ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                               PRESIDING MEMBER

                    DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA                 MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OP-1 and 2.

  OP-3 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA,MEMBER

              Succinctly put, the complainant had purchased a 2 Ton split AC manufactured and marketed by OP-1 and OP-2 through the agency of OP-3 on 20.03.2009 for Rs.31,000/-.  From the month of May, 2009 it started giving problem of cooling and thereafter despite replacing of the compressor and  thimble by the technicians of OP-1 and OP-2, the problem of cooling stood as it is. Thereafter again on repeated requests, on 21.05.2010, the team of technicians of OP-1 and OP-2 again inspected the AC and further told that the condenser  needs replacement,  for which the he(complainant) would have to bear half the cost of the condenser.  Thereafter various requests were made to rectify the said defect free-of-cost or to replace the AC with a new one as the said AC was giving problems from the day first and had a manufacturing defect but OP-1 and OP-2 did not pay any heed to his grievance.  He approached OP-1 and OP-2 through every possible means to get his grievance settled but all in vain.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.               Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. None appeared on behalf of the OP-3, accordingly the OP-3 was proceeded against ex-parte.

3.               In their written reply OP-1 and OP-2 submitted that admittedly, the complaint with regard to the said AC, was made by the complainant for the first time in the year 2010 on 20.05.2010. Though the machine was checked on the same date and the defect in the machine was also pointed out but the warranty of the said machine had already expired on 20.03.2010. Thereafter, the complainant was liable to pay for the defect, if any, which arose after warranty period. When the defect of condenser was intimated to the complainant, the complainant did not give his consent for its payment for replacement despite the same being out of warranty period. As a special customer gesture, two engineers were again deputed for the purpose of inspection and repairs at the premises of the complainant and the complainant was also offered a waiver of 50% on the charges payable, being the machine not under warranty period, but the complainant refused to accept the same. Denying all other material allegations, OP-1 and OP-2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.               The parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

5.               We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant as well as OP-1 and OP-2 and have also perused the record.

6.               Admittedly, the AC was purchased by the complainant on 20.03.2009, whereafter due to some defect, its compressor and thimble were replaced by OP-1 and OP-2 free-of-cost the same being under warranty period. Though the complainant has not placed on record any bill/invoice or warranty card of the said AC but OP-1 and OP-2 has not disputed the same. It has also not been disputed by OP-1 and OP-2 that during the warranty period the compressor was not replaced and thereafter thimble of the said AC was also replaced by them on 20.05.2010. 

7.               The main dispute in the present case is only with regard to the defective condenser of the AC, which admittedly got defective on 21.05.2010, i.e. after around three months of the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant sought replacement of the AC, only due to reason that its condenser got defective, when it was not under the warranty cover. The warranty in the present case was valid for all the parts except the compressor (which in our view generally may have a warranty of 5 years), expired on 19.03.2010 and thereafter, if any defect occurred in the AC (except in the compressor), the consumer/complainant would have to get it repaired/replaced after making its payment, being the same not under warranty cover.

8.               The complainant in his complaint has sought relief for replacement of the said AC, as it started encountering the defects during the warranty period. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the settled law, in case of any defective workmanship or defective material if found under the warranty period, the liability of the company/OPs company is limited only to the exchange or repair of any part or parts suffering from such defect and not replacement of the complete unit/machine itself. Admittedly, OP-1 and OP-2 have replaced the defective compressor and thimble of the said AC during the warranty period. Even after the expiry of the warranty period, as a goodwill gesture, OP-1 and OP-2 had tried to accommodate the complainant by offering a waiver of 50% of the cost of the new condenser but the complainant refused to accept it. Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case do not allow us to hold the OPs liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The condenser of the AC got defective only during the period when it was not under the warranty cover, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for its free replacement or for any other relief with regard to the replacement of the said condenser or the complete AC unit,  being not under the warranty period as per its terms and conditions.

9.               In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The complaint deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

       Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned for records.

Announced 

12^th January, 2011                             

       Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

PRESIDING MEMBER

       Sd/-

(MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA)

MEMBER