DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/30/2024
Date of Institution: 19.03.2024
Date of Decision: 01.10.2024
Lenin Bansal son of Shri Hira Lal Bansal, Advocate resident of 22 Acre Scheme of Improvement Trust, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala (M.No. 94170-13323).
…Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its Managing Director/CEO.
2. M/s Vidya Rattan Automobiles, Dhanaula Road, Opposite Garcha Road, Near ITI Chowk, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Chander Bansal Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its Managing Director/CEO & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Refrigerator Make Samsung i.e. OP No. 1, from OP No.2 vide invoice No. 3874 dated 13.02.2023 amounting to Rs.50,000/- including GST. It is alleged that from the day of purchase of this refrigerator when the ice in excess freeze in the upper portion i.e. freezer then the cooling of the refrigerator in remaining part i.e. lower part is not properly cool the items lying in the said refrigerator. It is further alleged that the complainant lodged numerous complaints i.e. on 04.01.2024, 10.01.2024, 13.01.2024 and 15-01-2024 respectively, but every time the mechanic of the opposite parties who neither visited the house of the complainant and inspected the refrigerator in question, nor cured the fault. It is further alleged that the mechanics of the opposite parties left the house of the complainant after stating that the fault is a mechanical fault and they lodged the complaint of the complainant with the company i.e. OP No. l and the competent person will be deputed by the OP No.1 to cure the said defect of the refrigerator. But no competent person is deputed till now by the opposite parties to inspect and cure the fault in the said refrigerator of the complainant, inspite of reminders and complaints lodged/made by the complainant and the complainant shown maximum patience. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 9.2.2024 upon the opposite parties to change the refrigerator of the complainant within 10 days, but with no result. It is alleged that the said act of the opposite parties is against law and facts which caused a mental tension, agony, harassment and physical pain and mental agony to the complainant. There is a great deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to change the said defected refrigerator with new one.
- Further, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental harassment and agony and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. No cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the present complaint against the answering opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant has lodged the first complaint on 4.01.2024 with regard to ‘Freezer Door Stuck' in the refrigerator in question and the service engineer visited the premises of complainant to check the product and on checking the product it was found that Drain was blocked due to ice due to which the freezer door was not opening properly and the visiting service engineer duly cleaned the drain and sensor was changed and the problem of stuck door' was resolved. It is further alleged that the complainant again lodged complaint on 31.01.2024 which was in furtherance to the earlier complaint lodged on 4.01.2024 and the service engineer visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator and there was no defect and the product was perfectly working. It is alleged that the present complaint is frivolous and has been filed with mischievous intentions. It is further alleged that there is no inherent defect in the refrigerator as alleged by complainant and the refrigerator has been checked by the technical expert and no defect has been found in the refrigerator.
4. On merits, it is denied that complainant has purchased the refrigerator in question vide invoice No. 3847 dated 13.02.2023 for Rs.50, 000/- from OP No.2. It is further alleged that the competent service engineer was deputed when the complaint was lodged on 4.01.2024 and the problem was duly rectified free of cost under warranty. Thereafter complainant again insisted that there is fault in the refrigerator then OP No.1 deputed the competent service engineer who thoroughly checked the refrigerator on 31.01.2024 and found that all the parameters of the refrigerator were within normal range and the refrigerator was working properly. It is further alleged that the complainant claims the said refrigerator to be suffering from DEFECTS, therefore, it is the legal duty under the discharge of burden upon the complainant to establish the same by TECHNICAL EXPERT REPORT but no such report has been adduced by the complainant till date and in the absence of any such TECHNICAL EXPERT REPORT the complaint of the complainant cannot be decided as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The complainant filed replication to the written version of opposite parties and reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
6. The complainant tendered into evidence copy of invoice Ex.C-1, copy of screenshot of complaints Ex.C-2 ( 2pages), copy of registered notice Ex.C-3 (2 pages), copy of reply Ex.C-4, copy of customer service record Ex.C-5, copy of warranty information Ex.C-6 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
7. The opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.O.Ps-2, copy of technical report Ex.O.Ps-3, copy of warranty card Ex.O.Ps-4 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Refrigerator Make Samsung from the opposite party No.2 vide invoice No. 3874 dated 13.02.2023 amounting to Rs.50,000/- including GST. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that from the day of purchase of the refrigerator, when the ice in excess freeze in the upper portion i.e. freezer then the cooling of the refrigerator in remaining part i.e. lower part is not properly cool the items lying in the said refrigerator. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant lodged numerous complaints dated 04.01.2024, 10.01.2024, 13.01.2024 and 15-01-2024 respectively, but every time the mechanic of the opposite parties who inspected the refrigerator in question failed to cure the defects. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant also served a legal notice dated 9.2.2024 to the opposite parties for replacement of the defected Refrigerator, but all in vain.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant lodged the first complaint on 4.01.2024 after 11 months of purchase and using the Refrigerator. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the opposite parties deputed the competent service engineer who thoroughly checked the Refrigerator on 31.1.2024 and found that all the parameters of the refrigerator were within normal range and the refrigerator was working properly. It is further argued that there is no inherent defect in the refrigerator as alleged by complainant and the refrigerator has been checked by the technical expert and no defect has been found in the refrigerator in question. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that there is no technical expert report and in the absence of any such technical expert report the alleged defect cannot be decided.
11. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by both the parties. The complainant has produced the purchase bill of the refrigerator i.e. Ex.C-1 and also produced the screen shots of different dates vide which he has lodged his complaint with the Samsung. From the said screen shots it is established that the complainant has approached the opposite parties on 4.1.2024, 10.1.2024, 13.1.2024 and 15.1.2024 for the defect of the refrigerator. The opposite parties have produced technical report as Ex.O.Ps-3 in which the Engineer of the opposite parties observed and mentioned the defect in the refrigerator “FREEZER DOOR GET STUCK & HARDLY OPEN DRAIN FOUD BLOCK WITH ICE DUE TO THIS DOOR GET STUCK”. The opposite parties admitted in the technical report that the said Service Engineer inspected the refrigerator on 31.1.2024 and observed that there are defects in the refrigerator in question. Later on the opposite party No. 2 filed an application for inspecting the refrigerator again and submitted report dated 10.9.2024, but the opposite party No. 2 failed to produce any affidavit and also failed to mention the name of the Engineer who inspected the defected refrigerator. The opposite parties also produced the warranty card Ex.O.Ps-4 from which it established that the defect in the refrigerator occurred within warranty period and the complainant also produced the warranty information Ex.C-6 from which it established that the defect occurred within the warranty period.
12. From the above said discussion, it is established that the defect in the refrigerator in question occurred within the warranty period and opposite party No. 1 failed to rectify the same and by not replacing the defective refrigerator in question is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to replace the defective refrigerator in question with the same model, failing which the opposite parties are directed to refund the purchasing amount of the refrigerator i.e. Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its actual realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- on the account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 3,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
1st Day of October, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
