DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.62/2023
- Mr. Mohit Kumar,
S/o Mr. Raj Kumar Bakhru,
R/o Flat No.1, UG Floor,
House No.40A, Ward No.4,
Mehrauli, New Delhi - 110030
- MR. Raj Kumar Bakhru
S/o Late Sh. Prabhu Das
R/o Flat No.1, UG Floor,
House No.40A, Ward No.4,
Mehrauli, New Delhi - 110030
….Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd.
Head Office
20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre,
Golf Course Road, Sector-43,
DLF, PH-V Gurgaon 12202, Haryana
Also at
Registered office
Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd.
6th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-11001
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 27.02.2023
Date of Order : 08.08.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Adv. Amrita Jaiswal along with complainant.
Adv. Sumit Kapoor, Proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Prashant Arora for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. On the strength of this complaint, complainant has approached this Commission for direction to Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd (OP) to replace the Refrigerator in question or to refund the cost of the refrigerator i.e Rs.18,490/- along with repair cost of Rs1000/- with interest @10% per month; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses.
2. It is stated that Complainant no.1 purchased a Samsung 253 L2 Star Frost Free Double Door Refrigerator on 13.10.2018 for Rs.18,490/- from online portal Amazon.in. for keeping medicines of his old father i.e Complainant No.2. It is further stated that complainant no.2 is suffering from many ailments for which he needed a refrigerator to keep his medicines. The said refrigerator provides for 10 years of warranty. Copy of the warranty details is annexed as Annexure C.
3. It is next stated that in December, 2021 the said refrigerator stopped cooling and the complainant registered a complaint with customer care, reporting the issue. The technician of OP visited complainant’s house for checking the refrigerator on 29.12.2021. However, the problem in the refrigerator was not resolved. Complainant No.1 also paid Rs.1000/- in advance for repairing services to the technician.
4. Since the problem was not resolved, Complainant No.1 repeatedly reported the issue to customer care of OP. There were several visits by different technicians and every time new reasoning was communicated. On 10.01.2022, the complainant was informed, ‘ gas leakage due to suction pipe rusted/broken near body because of mosquito’ . Thereafter, despite continuous follow-ups, complainant’s refrigerator was not repaired. It is stated that OP on 19.03.2022 offered a coupon of Rs10,539/- for purchasing another Samsung product. Since, complainant was already disappointed with the services of OP, he requested OP to either repair the refrigerator or refund the cost of the refrigerator, which fell to the deaf ears of OP.
5. Thus, aggrieved complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
OP filed its written version stating inter alia that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Commission by suppressing the material facts.
6. It is stated that the refrigerator in question carries a warranty for a period of one year. If there is any issue/problem with the said product then the company shall repair the same free of cost within the warranty period. However, in case of a damaged product or if the terms and conditions of the warranty policy are violated then the warranty policy shall be void and the product shall be repaired on chargeable basis.
7. It is next stated that the complainant approached OP for the very first time on 20.10.2018 and requested for demo installation, which was provided by OP. The complainant again approached OP on 29.12.2021 following which OP had sent their service engineer and post inspection, it was found that the suction pipe of the refrigerator got rusted/broken by some insects, which cannot be repaired and hence the refrigerator was in non repairable condition.
8. It is further stated that OP had even offered the depreciated refund of Rs. 10,539/- in the form of a Coupon to the complainant, which was refused. It is stated that the complainant has filed this complaint with mala fide intent to illegally extort money and blemish the name of OP. It is further stated that as per the condition of warranty, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded.
9. In view of the submissions made, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed with cost being devoid of merit.
10. Complainant in rejoinder states that as per the Samsung refrigerator warranty online, it includes one year warranty of coverage parts and labour and five years of warranty coverage parts and labour on sealed items and ten years of warranty on coverage parts for digital convertor compressors. It is further stated that product of OP suffers manufacturing defect that is why, it has become non repairable.
11. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
12. Complainant in support of his case has filed Invoice of the product in question wherein it seen that complainant has paid Rs.18,490/- on 13.10.2018 for the refrigerator. A job-sheet dated 29.12.2021 has been filed which shows that Rs.1000/- was paid to the representative of the authorized service centre of OP.
13. On perusal of the trail mail filed with the complaint, it is observed that OP refused to repair the refrigerator of the complainant stating that due to negligence, maintenance and lack of care for cleaning ,the refrigerator is not repairable. It is stated that a cockroach was found inside the cooling coil and as per the company guidelines it cannot be repaired under warranty.
14. Complainant has also filed 'refrigerator warranty' downloaded from the internet wherein it is stated that Samsung Refrigerator Warranty includes one year coverage of parts and labour and five years of coverage of parts and labour on sealed items and ten years of parts coverage for digital convertor compressors. However, reliance placed on this document by the complainant is misplaced as it is not clear from the said document whether this warranty applies to the Frost Free Double Door Refrigerator (Complainant’s model) as photographs in the said document are that of 'Four Door Flex’ and ‘Family Hub Refrigerators'.
15. Nonetheless it is seen that OP had offered a Customer Refund Coupon on the depreciated amount of the refrigerator amounting to Rs.10,539/- however, the offer was refused by the complainant as the complainant had lost faith and trust in OP company. As complainant had used the refrigerator for almost three years without any problem therefore, this Commission is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if OP pays the amount which was offered by them but not by way of a Coupon.
16. In light of the discussion above, OP is directed to pay Rs.10,539/- within three 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay @6% interest on above stated amount from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.