By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

1. Case of the complainant :-  

         On 02/06/2017 complainant purchased one Samsung Refrigerator worth Rs. 75,000/- from opposite party No.3 showroom. When purchasing the above refrigerator opposite party No.3 assured ten years compressor warranty and one year warranty for other parts of the Refrigerator. After  3 years and 7 months  from the date of purchase  of the a above Refrigerator,  the unit had  cooling issue  and  complainant was registered a complaint  with the service centre.  After two days of filing complaint, a service person from service centre came and inspected the Refrigerator , but he did not pointed out the actual complaint of the refrigerator.  Then complainant called opposite party No.3 and they informed the complainant that  they are waiting  for the PCB  they already ordered.   Due to  courier problem , the service person  brought  the  PCB  after 13 days of his first visit.  On that  day he realised that the problem of the  refrigerator is not  connected with PCB , but found complaint on    condenser.   The  reason for   not detecting the complaint at first time was  due to the  inexperience on the part of the service person  , who examined the unit  for the first time  and  complainant had waited 16 days without detecting the actual  complaint of the refrigerator.  Thereafter opposite parties informed the complainant that the condenser of the fridge was non repairable.  Thereafter   complainant was informed that one person will come to pick the fridge from his house, but complainant was not ready to give the fridge to the representative of opposite party.   Complainant stated that the refrigerator have ten year compressor warranty and only three year is over.  Complainant requested another fridge for his temporary usage, opposite parties are reluctant to give another fridge to complainant. For keeping medicines   and other things complainant bought another fridge on 26^th January.  Opposite party offered a coupon for purchasing another product of Samsung company, but complainant   refused to receive that coupon offered by company.   Due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties   complainant and his family   suffered a lot mentally  . Hence this complaint.

2.      Prayer of the complainant is that he is entitled to get  Rs. 75,000/- the cost of the fridge and Rs. 25,000/- for the deficiency of service and loss  sustained  by the complainant due to the act of opposite  parties. 

3.       On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they appeared before the commission through their counsel and filed version .

4.        In their version opposite party No:1 admitted that complainant had purchased a refrigerator  as stated  in the complaint which is manufactured by them and  having  10 years compressor warranty.  After three years and 6 months the unit had cooling complaint that was reported by the complainant and same was duly registered by the service centre. On inspection it was found internal condenser leakage which is a non repairable complaint. Since the unit is non repairable, as per the warranty policy, the complainant is entitled to get depreciated refund considering the period of usage of the unit.  This was informed to the complainant and as a policy condition, he was offered   depreciated refund of the cost since he had used the unit for a period of three years and six months.  But the complainant was not amenable for the said proposal but demanding full refund which is against warranty policy.   For maintaining the good relationship with the customer the company decided to give coupon of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant and the fact was intimated via mail to the  customer .  But that too was discarded by the complainant. 

5.  They again stated that complainant was used the refrigerator for a period of three

years and 6 months without any complaint.  But unfortunately, no repairable complaint was occurred.    As per the warranty policy, if the unit faces any complaint during warranty period the same will be repaired on free of cost  and  after warranty will be repaired on chargeable basis.  But in this case the unit is found non repairable then depreciated  refund will be given considering the  period of usage  as per the slab  applicable to each case.   Hence there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party  No.1.  In case of  any after sales service or quality issue is brought to notice of the  opposite parties’s service centre , as a policy matter, the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority.  But complainant as instead preferred the present ill motivated complaint.   Hence complaint may be dismissed.

6.       In their version opposite party No.2 stated that   they denied  all the allegations raised by complainant except those which are admitted hereunder.  They again stated that they are unaware about the  cost of the refrigerator. But they know that  the compressor had 10 years warranty  and one year warranty of other parts of the refrigerator.  They again stated that as per the complaint registered by complainant  they had  approached complainant and inspected the fridge of complainant.  Due to the   non –cooling of freezer there is a chance for defective PCB or gas leakage or defect of compressor. They admitted that they had ordered a PCB and by replacing the PCB, the defect is not rectified.  Hence they inspected carefully and found that the issue is on the condenser, inside the body parts of the fridge and they informed about this  to complainant and the company.  That kind of defects are  not serviced and replaced by   them.  There is a delay in getting the body parts of the refrigerator due to the Covid pandemic issues.  Moreover they are only the service centre of opposite party No.1. There is no defect caused to the fridge due to the servicing of opposite party No.2.  There is no  right  to this opposite party No.2 to rectify the  issue of condenser leakage  because  it is an internal body part of the refrigerator.   Moreover they have no right to give the refunded amount or change the fridge instead  of defective fridge to complainant.  Hence there is no  deficiency of service on their side.

7.  In their version opposite party No.3 stated that, the fridge mentioned in the complaint is manufactured by the first opposite party.   The company is offered warranty service to the customer and after warranty service through their service Centres.  Opposite party No.2 is the service centre of opposite party No.1. opposite party No.3 is  only a dealer  of first opposite party  and once the product is sold with warranty , the liability of  opposite party No.3 seizes.  They provided quality show room with experts appointed by first opposite party.  The product details are explained by the said officials of the first opposite party  and they provides  a platform  for  them  to sell their products.   Hence  they are  not  the necessary party to this proceedings.

8.    They again contented that, when complainant purchased the fridge from their show room, a proper bill was issued by them to complainant.  The said fridge is manufactured by opposite party No.1 and the quality service and as such technical aspects are under the responsibility of opposite party No.1. Once the sale is complete the service of this opposite party seizes.   The warranty service and after sales service is offered by the manufacturer and they are doing the same with toll free numbers and service outlets exclusively maintained by the company.  If any complaints are received by them, the same will be intimated to the manufacturing company and its service centre.  They again stated that the date of registration of complaint on 24/12/2020 is not correct.  They denied all the averments in the complaint.   They again stated that, the fridge they sold to complainant without any manufacturing defect and there was proper warranty also.   Hence they are not the necessary party to this dispute and the opposite party cannot do any of the acts to be done by the manufacturer.  Complainant ought to have filed complaint against the manufacturer and the service personal.  As per the warranty conditions they cannot do anything and the warranty contract is between the complainant and the manufacturer. They are not having any vicarious liability as alleged by the complainant. Opposite party No.3 shop stores the product and sells the same as directed by the manufacturer. The relationship with them is seller and buyer relationship.  It does not involve any service either paid promised or partly paid or promised.  Hence there is no deficiency of service from their service.

9.      In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 & A2. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of retail invoice issued by opposite party No.3 to complainant dated 02/06/2017, Ext.A2 is the copy of email communications between complainant and opposite party No.1. Thereafter opposite party No.2 and 3 filed affidavit  and opposite party No.3 filed  two documents  that are marked as Ext. B1 & B2. Ext. B1 is the original retail invoice issued by opposite party No.3 to complainant dated 02/06/2017, Ext. B2 is the   copy of customer call register. For opposite party No.1,  no affidavit recorded. Opposite party No.1 filed Notes argument.

10.         Heard complainant and opposite parties.  Perused affidavit and documents.  The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed.
3. Reliefs and cost.

11. Point No.1 & 2:-

Case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a refrigerator from opposite party No. 3 on 02/06/2017 for Rs. 75,000/- having 10 years compressor warranty and after three years and 6 months from the date of purchase, the freezer had cooling issue.Opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the problem is on the condenser that was non repairable and complainant was informed to give replacement, butnothing was done by them.

12.    But opposite party No.1 admitted that the above refrigerator had 10 years compressor warranty  and complainant registered a complaint.  On inspection they found internal condenser leakage which is non repairable.  As per their policy, complainant is entitled to get depreciated refund considering the period of usage or they decided to give a coupon of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 stated that, they are unaware of the  cost of the refrigerator, but they know that the compressor had 10 years warranty and one year warranty for other parts of the refrigerator.   They again stated that there is no defect caused to the fridge due to the servicing of opposite party No.2 .There is no right to them to rectify the issue of condenser leakage, because it is an internal body part of the refrigerator. Opposite party No.3 stated that, they are only the dealer of first opposite party and once the product is sold with warranty, the liability of opposite party No.3 seizes. They only provide a platform for first opposite party to sell their products.   
13. In this complaint, opposite party No.3 admitted that they sold the above fridge to complainant on 02/06/2017.  Opposite party No.2 also stated that, the fridge mentioned above  had  cooling problem and   as per the direction of  opposite party No.1 , they inspected the fridge  and they found that  the condenser  inside the  body part of the fridge had issue . As per their opinion condenser is an internal body part, so they are unable to service the fridge and replace the fridge.  Opposite party No.1 also stated that the above fridge had cooling issue and it was due to the internal condenser leakage.
14.     From the above facts it is clear that, the fridge mentioned in the complaint had cooling issue after three years and 6 months of its purchase. Opposite party No.1 & 2 admitted that the issue of internal condenser leakage and condenser is a part situated inside the body part of the fridge.  So there is no mistake from the side of complainant.  The cooling problem of the fridge caused  so many mental problems to complainant. Complainant using insulin and other medicines in daily basis and he bought this costly refrigerator for keeping the medicines and other easily decaying items.   So the case of the complainant is genuine. 
15.     The compressor of the fridge had 10 years warranty  and that is admitted by all the opposite parties. So opposite party No.1 admitted that, the fridge was manufactured by them and that has 10 years compressor warranty and after 3 years and 6 months the unit had cooling issues and complaint was registered with the service centre by the complainant and it was found that complaint was on the condenser that was non-repairable.  But they did not file an affidavit and documents to prove their case.  They only filed version and no documents marked from their side.  Along with version they filed the warranty card of all the products of Samsung company, but that was not marked.  In that warranty card even if it is not marked there mentioned “this warranty covers repair / replacement of parts”. In the version of opposite party No.1 and 2 they clearly stated that the defect caused to the condenser which is non repairable.  Then how can the poor complainant get the fridge repaired as per the warranty condition.  Opposite party No.1 clearly stated that it is a non repairable defect which is not due to the act of complainant. The defect caused within three years and 6 months of its purchase. They again stated that there is a replacement of parts which is also not done by them in the proper time. 
16.      Another point in the  warranty card is that “warranty is applicable only on products purchased from authorized sellers and repaired at authorized centers”.  Opposite party No.2 stated that they are authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 also started that they are the authorized seller of opposite party No.1.  So from the above points, we are on the opinion that opposite party No.1 is liable for the defects caused to the refrigerator manufactured by them.  Moreover another warranty condition is that third party repair attempts are not covered in warranty. In this matter opposite party No.2 admitted that they inspected the fridge in question and found that there is condenser leakage that means they attempted to repair the fridge. But they have failed because condenser is an internal part of the refrigerator which is under the control of manufacturer, opposite party No.1. There is no attempt to repair the fridge from a third party because opposite party No.2 is the authorized service center of opposite party No.1.  Moreover opposite party No.2 admitted that, they attempted to repair the fridge as per the complaint registered by the complainant before opposite party No.1. There is no contention raised by opposite parties that the defect caused due to the customer negligence or customer misuse.  The fridge in question is somewhat a costly refrigerator worth Rs.75000/-.  Complainant must bought this fridge for keeping   medicines and other items which must  always keep in fridge. That is why complainant bought such a costly fridge and it got damaged within 3 years and 6 months not due to his fault. Opposite party No.1 admitted in their version that unfortunately non repairable complaint was occurred. In their version they stated that if the unit is found non repairable then depreciated refund will be given considering the period of usage as per the slab applicable to each case.  But in our view   complainant purchased a costly fridge having 10 years warranty to the compressor and it got damaged within 3 years and 6 months of its purchase. Complainant does not know the policy of opposite parties especially opposite party No.1. He does not know about the depreciated refund.  As a normal person,  the fridge worth  Rs. 75000/- having warranty of 10 years got dyfunct  after three years  and 6 months and he purchased  another fridge of another company  for keeping the medicines and he had lost  the belief and faith in  Samsung company. But he did not produce the bill  of  newly purchased fridge.  As per Ext. A2 opposite party No.1 offered Rs. 42,750/- to complainant through coupon on 28/01/2021.  But on 29/01/2021 complainant replied that he was not satisfied with that amount.   
17.       In the complaint there is no direct allegation against opposite party No.2 & 3.  Moreover opposite party No.2 stated that they had instructed the refrigerator of complainant as per the complaint registered by the complainant   before opposite party No.1.  Condenser of the refrigerator had problem and condenser is an internal body part of the refrigerator and they are unable to replace and service  the internal body part of the refrigerator. They informed about these facts to complainant and the company. There is no damage caused to the fridge during the service of the fridge at their service centre.  They again stated that they have no right  to solve the condenser issue because it is an internal body part of the refrigerator.  All the agreement is between company and complainant.  From the above facts we are on the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the side of opposite party No.2.

18. Opposite party No.3 stated that,  they are only the dealer of the first opposite party  and once the product is  sold  with warranty,  the liability of the opposite parties  seizes. They provided quality show room with experts appointed by first opposite party. The product details are explained by the said officials of first opposite party and they provides a platform for them to sell the product of opposite party No.1.  They again stated that they issued a purchase bill to the complainant.  Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer and the quality service and  such technical aspects are under the responsibility of the manufacturer.  Once a sale is completed  the service of   them seizes.  Moreover  they stated that  no complaint was received from complainant to them.  So there is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.3.  From the above facts, it is seen that the contentions raised by them are true.  There is no allegation in the complaint   against the third opposite party.  Opposite party stores the product and sell the same as directed by the manufacturer is also true.  From the above facts  we are on the opinion that  there is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.2 and 3. Opposite party No.1  is liable to compensate the complainant.  Because there is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice from  the side of opposite party No.1. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite party  No.1 is deficient in service.

19.  Point No.3:-

          We allow this complaint  as follows:-

1. The opposite party No.1  is directed to refund Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy  five thousand only) the cost of the refrigerator  to the complainant and complainant is directed to returned back the used Samsung refrigerator   to opposite party No.1   fter  payment and   opposite party No.1 is  directed to  take the refrigerator  from  complainant’s house .
2. The opposite party No.1 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
3. The opposite party No.1 also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five  thousand only)   as cost of the proceedings.

          If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.

Dated this 31^st day of October, 2022.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                       : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                     : Ext.A1 &A2

Ext.A1 : Photocopy of retail invoice issued by opposite party No.3 to complainant            

               dated 02/06/2017.

 Ext.A2 : Copy of email communications between complainant and opposite party  

                No.1.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                    : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                  : Ext. B1& B2

Ext. B1 : Original retail invoice issued by opposite party No.3 to complainant dated         

                02/06/2017.

Ext.B2: Copy of customer call register.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER