DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

                    ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/95/2017

No. DF/ Central/

Kiran Kriplani

10/18, 1^st Floor,

Old Rajinder Nagar,

New Delhi – 110 060                                                          

                                                                                       …..COMPLAINANT

Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C,

Vipul Tech Square,

Golf Course Road, Sector – 43,

Gurgaon – 122002        

                                                                                        …..OPPOSITE PARTY                   

Quorum:     Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                   Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

                   Shri R.S. Nagar, Member

ORDER

Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

     Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging therein that on 08/04/2010 complainant purchased an Air Conditioner from the dealer of the OP but the product did not lead to its worth due to irritating problems as there were water leakage and noise problems.  In the year 2011 a major problem quoted as DB 96-116751A including of gas refill.  The gas leakage problem repeated in the year 2011 again.  On 12/05/2013 complainant again got the gas refilled along with capillary replaced and condenser repaired but the problem of gas leakage and condenser re-appeared on 30/08/2013 again.  But OP did fill the

gas and repair the condenser in the warranty/guarantee period.  On 02/09/2013 complainant sent notice to the OP to replace the defective product or pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation but of no avail.   The complainant has filed a suit against the OP and its dealer which was dismissed so also the appeal preferred thereafter.    Again in the year, 2014 problem of gas leakage re-occurred and radiator got damaged and was replaced from a local technician. On 31/03/2015 the compressor failed against which a complaint was sent in writing to the OP and again resent in May 2015 but the letter came back stating that the OP has left ‘‘the then address.’’

     Complainant prayed that OP is liable of misrepresentation, passing of defective, disputed product and for deficient and unreliable services. OP be directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- as recovery of damages, harassment, humiliation along with interest at the rate of 18%, compounded from the date of institution till realisation. 

          In reply to the notice, OP denied the allegations stating that this forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as the answering OP is not situated within the local territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.   It is further stated that on 23/06/2011 i.e. after one year of the purchase of the product the OP had come to know issues regarding the air conditioner and on checking it was found that there was gas leakage.  However, it was made clear to the complainant at that time that the product of the complainant is out to warranty period and any

and all service would be on a chargeable basis and it is only after complainant accepted the same, the gas was refilled to the satisfaction of the complainant.   It is further stated that on 12/05/2013, the complainant approached to OP with some issues regarding the AC and the same were got repaired.  However, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect and the relief sought by the complainant is beyond the terms and conditions of warranty.

      In replication, complainant reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and denied allegations made by the OP.  Affidavit of evidence has been filed by both the parties.

     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.  Counsel for OP has argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as OP’s office is not situated within the local limits of this forum.  However, the complainant has argued that since he purchased the A/c from the dealer of the OP and the dealer of the OP has its shop in Karol Bagh, which is well within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  From the perusal of the receipt of the product, it is clear that complainant has purchased the product in question from Karol Bagh, the dealer of OP and therefore, the argument of OP  that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint is not sustainable as Karol Bagh area is well within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum.

     Complainant has himself, in the complaint stated that the first complaint regarding the defect in the AC was made to the OP on 12/05/2013 whereas the

product has been purchased on 08/04/2010.  It is crystal clear that the first complaint is made after one year and as per the terms and conditions of the product the warranty period is one year from the date of purchase and the service engineer of the OP also apprised the complainant that since the product is out of warranty period any / all services would be on chargeable basis and it is only on the consent of the complainant, the service engineer worked on the product and refilled the gas in the product.  On perusal of the warranty card placed on record, it is clear that the warranty for AC is 12 months and the warranty for condenser and compressor is 36 months and 60 months respectively.   In the warranty card, it is also mentioned that refill of gas /coolant due to physical damage and during replacement of compressor or condenser under part-specific warranty period shall be on chargeable basis. 

     From the perusal of the facts of the complaint, it is manifest that the complainant has made the first complaint on 12/05/2013 i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase.  As far as the complaint regarding the compressor is concerned, it is alleged that the complainant has made the complaint on 31/03/2015 but OP did not repair/replace the same though it was within the warranty period and the complainant had to pay the services but OP has vehemently denied the allegations stating that no problem occurred in the year 2015 and complainant has not made any complaint to him.  The complainant has placed on record the certificate dated 24/04/2017 of  MA Cool Air Con stating that the compressor of

the AC of the complainant was inspected by him in around  25/03/2015, when his team came to routine annual services of the said AC, found to be defective and not working at all.  In this certificate, it is not mentioned that the condenser was replaced by the MA Cool Air Con or MA Cool Air Con had come to inspect the AC on the call of the complainant but he came as a routine annual service provider to the complainant.  The Certificate of M A Cool Con dated 24/04/2017 seems to be an afterthought of the complainant to fill the gap.  Complainant has not placed on record anything to prove that he made a complaint regarding non-functioning of the compressor to the OP.  However, he has placed letters which he claims to have received back from the OP as OP had left that address.  The said letters do not bear any remarks of the postal authorities on the envelope stating that OP has left that address.  Had it been a case that complainant was receiving the letters back without service on OP, he could have approached the dealer from whom he had purchased the A/c complaining the product or asking the address of the OP.

          From the above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed.    A copy of the order is sent to concerned parties as per statutory requirement.   File be consigned to record room.         

Announced on this 5^th  Day of  March   2019.