DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.374/21
Surender Tomar
S/o Late Shri Hira Tomar
R/o H.No.79, Gali No.2
New Chauhan Pur, Karawal Nagar
Delhi-110094. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Having its registered office att:-
6th Floor, DLF Building Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110001.
Razzle Dazzle Electronics
F-3/28, Krishna Nagar
Delhi-110051. ….Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Gaurav Rathore and Mordhwaj Tiwari for complainant.
Present: Adv. Nasreen Bano proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Prashant Arora for OP.
ORDER
Date of Institution:15.12.2021
Date of Order : 10.07.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund Rs.87,000/- @24% per annum from the date when the demand for replacement of defective goods were made till actual realization; Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation and mental agony and pain and Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses. OP-1 is Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and OP-2 Razzle Dazzle Electronics.
- It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased refrigerator of OP-1 from OP-2 after paying Rs.87,000/-. This product had one year warranty from 26.01.2020. Invoice dated 26.01.2020 is annexed as annexure C-1. It is stated by the complainant that he was made to believe that it is one best products of the OP-1 in the category of refrigerator and highly durable and defect free.
- It is stated that soon after the purchase of the refrigerator complainant observed that one part of the refrigerator was broken and said fact was brought to the knowledge of the OPs by the complainant. Complaint was made on 27.01.2020 and after about ten days, the broken part was replaced. It is stated that the product was lying unused for these ten days. The true copy of the complaint is annexed as annexure C-2 (colly).
- It is further stated that the complainant again faced issues with the refrigerator on 02.10.2020 regarding its cooling and the error was reflecting on the screen of the refrigerator. One technician visited on 03.10.2020 and it was told to the complainant that some part of the refrigerator is defective and needed replacement. Complainant was assured that the part will be changed within three to five days but after a few days the problem started occurring again.
- It is further stated that complainant started facing issues regarding cooling of the refrigerator and again raised the complaint on 12.10.2020, the technician again visited and informed the complainant that the problem has been fixed after replacement of other parts of the refrigerator.
- It is further stated by the complainant that he continuously faced problem with the refrigerator and raised many complaints with the technician of OP-1. It was later informed to him by the engineering staff of OP-1 that there is gas leakage and assured the complainant that the problem will be fixed and will not occur again. It is further stated that the said problems still persisted in the refrigerator.
- It is further stated that though the complainant has approached OP many times for permanent solution, but the OPs have failed to provide proper, complete and one time solution to the complainant. Complainant also sent an email dated 21.11.2020 to the Service Head of OP-1 but no satisfactory steps have been taken so far to cure the defect in the said refrigerator. Copy of the email is annexed as annexure C-3.
- It is stated by the complainant that he has been facing issues with the product/refrigerator since he purchased it and it appears that there is manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator. It is stated that the OPs are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant. It is stated that the OPs have failed to perform obligation and duties on their part and thus are liable to be prosecuted for deficiency in service.
- It is stated that sufficient time has been provided by the complainant to the OP-1 to fulfill its obligation and perform its part of the duty by providing proper service towards the purchased product but nothing has been done and therefore the complainant is demanding refund along with interest.
- In their reply, OP 1 has stated that the product purchased by the complainant had a warranty of one year and as per the warranty policy in case there is any issue with the product then OP 1 would have to repaired it free of cost. However, in case of damaged product or if the terms and conditions of the warranty policy are violated then the warranty shall be cancelled and the product shall be repaired of chargeable basis. In this regard, warranty policy is placed on record as annexure-A
- It is stated that complainant approached OP-1 for the first time on 02.10.2020 with some “display blinking issue” for which the service engineer of OP-1 contacted the complainant to visit the premises however, he was informed that the complainant was not available. The complaint was closed with remarks that the complainant was not available.
- Complainant approached OP-1 again on 12.10.2020 “with no cooling issue” for which the service engineer visited the complainant on the same day and found that the duct meets to be replaced. After replacing, the unit was checked and observed that it was working properly. Copy of the job sheet is annexed as annexure-B.
- It is further stated that complainant again approached OP-1 on 17.11.2020 that “no cooling issue” however, the complainant informed that he is out of station and service engineer of OP-1 closed the complaint with the remarks complainant is not available.
- Complainant again approached OP-1 in November and service engineer contacted but he was again informed that the complainant is out of station. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
- It is further stated that complainant again approached OP-1 on 03.05.2021 with “no cooling issue” and the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and it was found that the product needed to be serviced however, complainant denied to pay the service charge. The complaint was closed with remarks with the product being out of warranty needed to have chargeable service which the complainant refused to pay.
- It is stated by the OP-1 that whenever the complainant has approached then it was addressed by OP-1 and OP-1 is still ready to resolve the issue if any, as per the warranty policy. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of OP-1.
- It is stated that complainant has filed the present complaint to arm twist OP-1 in exchanging the product. It is stated that complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the product or any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 In this regard OP-1 has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC passed in Sushila Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birender Narain (2010) CPJ 130 (NC). It is stated as per the condition of warranty replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded.
- In his rejoinder, complainant has denied the allegations made by the OP in their reply. It is stated that buyer is always kept in dark regarding the condition of warranty and guarantee and is compelled to accept the terms and condition imposed by the seller and manufacturers in the form of warranty/guarantee. The warranty card is always the product box and the buyer has to purchase the product to access the warranty card if the buyer wants the terms of warranty of the product sold. This practice is against Sales of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act 2019.
- It is stated that at the time of unboxing of the product by the installation team of OP-1 and it was found that some part of the refrigerator was broken, complainant raised his concern on 27.01.2020 and broken part was replaced but it shows the quality of stringent tests conducted by OP on their products.
- It is further stated that complainant has placed several documentary evidences which proves that the product purchased is defective since the beginning. It is stated that the refrigerator needed repair for the fifth time within few months and OP-1 was only buying time so that the warranty period would expire and money could be extorted from the complainant in the name of service.
- It is further stated that email dated 03.12.2020 sent by OP-1 wherein the OP-1 is providing extended warranty for refrigerator shows that OP-1 knew about manufacturing fault in the refrigerator and tried to trap the complainant so that he may not file the present complaint.
- Both the complainant as well as OP-1 have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments on record. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. Complainant has placed on record the SMSes received by him from OP-1 which shows about 4-5 messages between 27.01.2020 till 31.01.2020 again on 07.02.2020, 10.02.2020 and on 2.10.2020, 3.10.2020, 6.10.2020, 12.10.2020, 16.10.2020, 17.11.2020, 19.11.2020, 22.11.2020, 27.12.2020. Complainant has also placed on record emails received from OP-1 dated 21.11.2020.
- As far as complaints made in October are concerned, it is seen that complainant made the first complaint on 02.10.2020 and thereafter when the service engineer contacted the complainant he was informed that the complainant was not available and the complaint was closed. However, it is seen from the material on record that the SMSes sent by OP do not reflect that the complaint was closed on account of the complainant being not available.
- It is also seen that the OP-1 has itself admitted that complainant again approached them on 12.10.2020 with ‘no cooling issue’ and the duct was replaced. The same was problem was against reported on 17.11.2020 and again on 03.05.2021. OP-1 has also placed on record an email dated 03.12.2020 wherein OP-1 has provided a 12 month extended warranty along with quality repair to the complainant.
- This is a case of res ipsa loquitor that is the number of complaints made by the complainant to OP-1 within the year of warranty are far too many and does not really need an expert opinion on manufacturing defect.
Therefore, this Commission is of the opinion that the product is faulty and direct OP-1 to refund Rs.87,000/- to the complainant within three months from the date of pronouncement of order failing which OP-1 would be liable to pay interest @6% per annum. OP-1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant. Complainant is directed to return the product to OP-1 once the refund has been initiated by OP-1. The refund and the return of the product is to be done simultaneously.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
