Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/125/2013

N.Subramaniyan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Electronics Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.ASIF ALI

14 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 21.03.2013

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 14.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.125/2013

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

N. Subramanian,

S/o. Late. K. Natarajan,

No.3, Rajarathinam 2^nd Street,

Ullagaram,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                        .. Complainant.                                

 

                                                                                          ..Versus..

1. Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

No.24, Rajasekaran Street,

Opp. Kalyani Hospital,

Dr. R.K. Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

2. Vasanth & Co.,

No.61, Medavakkam Main Road,

Ullagaram,

Chennai – 600 091.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : Mr. Asif Ali

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party  : M/s. V.V. Giridhar & others                  

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. Siva Suyambu

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.12,400/- in alternative to replace the defective fridge with a new one and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for causing inconvenience, mental agony and deficiency in service with to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he purchased a Samsung DC Fridge RR2015RSBRJ/TL bearing No.R3204 PAC 8039167 on 03.11.2012 from the 2^nd opposite party showroom.  From the date of purchase of fridge, it was not working properly and it has some defect in the cooling system i.e. over cool in the freezer and ice cubes are formed and falling out and from the compressor water over flows. The complainant gave a complaint No.8420417834 on 04.12.2012.  The service person came on 05.12.2012 at 05:00 p.m. during the power cut.  The opposite party’s service persons taken signature from the complainant’s wife as if the defect was attended without attending any work.  The complainant submits that subsequently on 15.12.2012, for the second time, the complaint No.8420417834 was given.  But the opposite party has not attended any service.  The opposite party has to replace with a new one or return the value of the fridge as they have failed to respond the complainant’s complaint.  The complainant submits that the silence of the opposite parties amounts to wriggling out of their liability under warranty and refusing to settle the claim is wholly unwarranted and unjustified.    The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.    Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complaint dated:04.12.2012 given by the complainant was duly attended by the 1^st opposite party and found that there was no fault in the refrigerator.  The 1^st opposite party further states that after the completion of the service, the complainant had also signed the service voucher and did not make any complaint as against the service provided by the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that on 15.12.2012, the complainant lodged the second complaint of similar nature.  The same service person attended the fridge and found that there was no fault in the refrigerator and if the settings of the fridge is done manually, there will not be any problem in the refrigerator.  Further, the 1^st opposite party affirms that the same was duly informed to the complainant and once again the service call was closed by reporting no fault in the refrigerator.  The 1^st opposite party states that there was no material evidence in support of the said contention that the fridge was a defective one.  The 1^st opposite party also points out that if the complainant opts for the de-freezing mode the ice cubes will fall and if the complainant adjusts the temperature of the refrigerator manually there will not be any problem and adjusting the temperature of the refrigerator is not a service issue and can be adjusted manually according to the requirements of the purchasers.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the claim against the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.     The 2^nd opposite party states that at the time of purchase of the above Samsung DC Fridge RR 2015RSBRJ/TL, they have clearly instructed the complainant that for any manufacturing defect, the complainant should directly contact either the manufacturer or their authorized service centre.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to any manufacturing defect.  On this condition alone, the 2^nd opposite party sold the Samsung DC fridge RR 2015RSBRJ/TL and the complainant purchased the same on agreeing this condition.   Bill raised in this product also confirms this statement.   The 2^nd opposite party states that there is no privity of contract between the opposite party and the complainant.   The warranty was given by the manufacturer namely M/s. Samsung to the complainant.   The 2^nd opposite party is one of the dealers of the 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party cannot be made liable for manufacturing defect if any.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund a sum of Rs.12,400/- being the price of refrigerator alternatively, to the replacement of the defective refrigerator with a new one as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, deficiency in service etc with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The complainant and the 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsels also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that he purchased a Samsung DC Fridge RR2015RSBRJ/TL bearing No.R3204 PAC 8039167 on 03.11.2012 from the 2^nd opposite party showroom as per Ex.A1, copy of bill.  From the date of purchase of fridge, it was not working properly and it has some defect in the cooling system i.e. over cool in the freezer and ice cubes are formed and falling out and from the compressor water over flow.  The complainant gave a complaint No.8420417834 on 04.12.2012.  The service person came on 05.12.2012 at 05:00 p.m. during the power cut.  The opposite party’s service persons taken signature from the complainant’s wife as if the defect was attended without attending any fault.  Eventhough, the complainant has not produced any record to prove the said allegation, the opposite party who attended the service also miserably failed to produce the details of service conducted by him.  There is no evidence in this case to prove that the opposite party issued job card to the complainant.  Further the contention of the complainant is that subsequently on 15.12.2012, for the second time, the complaint No.8420417834 was given.  But the opposite party has not attended any service.  The fridge supplied by the opposite party is not working and is a defective one which should be replaced.   Over cooling, falling of ice cubes, overflowing water from the compressor are the manufacturing defects of the fridge.  Further the contention of the complainant is that as per Ex.A1, the copy of bill with warranty, the opposite parties are liable to replace the fridge since, the opposite parties has not rectified the defect and not come forward to replace the fridge.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:05.01.2013 as per Ex.A2 and filed this case. 

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that the complaint dated:04.12.2012 given by the complainant was duly attended by the 1^st opposite party and found that there was no fault in the refrigerator.  The said fact was also explained to the complainant and obtained signature of the complainant after completion of service.  But the opposite parties has not produced any document to prove that the impugned fridge have no defective muchless, the details of service without any reason amounts to suppression of material facts.  Since the complainant who is the customer has not been provided any job card related to the complaint.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that on 15.12.2012, the complainant lodged the second complaint of similar nature.  The same service person attended the fridge and found that there was no fault in the refrigerator and if the settings of the fridge is done manually, there will not be any problem in the refrigerator.  But the opposite parties for the reason best known to its officials has not come forward to file the relevant documents including Job cards proves the deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not proved the 2^nd complaint and the service related thereto.  But it is very clear from the records that the service details and job cards will be with the opposite party alone.  There is no iota of evidence that due job cards has been given to the complainant immediately after the service proves the unfair trade practice.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the Samsung DC Fridge RR2015RSBRJ/TL with a brand new one within one month, failing which to pay a sum of Rs.12,400/- being the cost price of the said fridge and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally are directed to replace the Samsung DC Fridge RR 2015RSBRJ/TL with a  brand new one within one month, failing which to pay a sum of Rs.12,400/- (Rupees twelve thousand four hundred only) being the cost price of the said fridge and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

  The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	03.11.2012	Copy of purchase bill
Ex.A2	05.01.2013	Copy of legal notice with acknowledgment

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT