Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/400/2018

N.Balamurugapandian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung india electronics pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.Nagendran

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :26.07.2012         

Date of disposal             :21.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai -600003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                          : MEMBER-I

                                 THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.400/2018

 

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 26^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

N.Balamurugapandian,

(S/o.P.Nagendran)

Panjatcharam Illam,

No.18, 30 feet road,

Balai Nagar Extension,

Anakaputhur, Chennai-600 070.

 

Through Power Agent Thiru.P.Nagendran,

Panjatcharam Illam,

No.18, 30 feet road,

Balai Nagar Extension,

Anakaputhur, Chennai-600 070.

                                                                                               .. Complainant.                                                               ..Vs..

 

1. M/s.Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep.by Manager,

No.24, Rajasekaran Street/Dr.Radhakrishnana Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

 

2. M/s.Chellamani & Co (Dealer)

Rep.by Manager,

No.24/25, Municipal Shopping Complex,

Shanmugam Road,  Tambaram (West)

Chennai-600 045.

 

3. M/s.Alfa Refrigeration Co., (Authorised Service Centre)

Rep.by Manager,

No.1A/1, Dhankottiraja Street,

Sundar Nagar, Ekkattuthangal,

Chennai-600 032.

                                                               ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. P.Nagendran, Power of attorney

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                  : M/s. V.V.Giridhar and P.Suresh

Counsel for 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party        : Ex-parte.    

 

ORDER

TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,          : MEMBER-I

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite party to get complainant defective Air conditioner replaced or pay Rs.19,500/- which was spent on its purchase and repair and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards travel, postal and typing charges and to pay Rs.2151/- collected for service under warranty period and to pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.208/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. by Proc.Rc.No.A1/2282/2018, Dated:11.09.2018 and taken on file as C.C. No.400/2018.

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

                           The complainant submitted that on 08.03.2009 the complainant purchased a One Ton Split Air Conditioner of M/s.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., from their dealer of 2^nd opposite party.  The Air conditioner developed problem a year after purchase.  On the receipt of our complaint, the 1^st opposite party sent their service engineer. He diagnosed the defect to be ‘out door unit leakage’ in May 2010 and took the whole Air conditioner/unit for repair. The authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite party returned the unit in June 2010 saying that necessary rectification had been made and that gas had been refilled. Further submitted that the service centre charged Rs.2151/- for gas filling , when the warranty had not expired. Again on 02.06.2012 the unit stopped working and made a complaint on same day. The 1^st opposite party sent a man to us and he said that he would come another day. But no one turned up.  Hence the complainant wrote a letter on 14.06.2012. But neither the company nor their authorized service centre responded. The complainant wrote another letter on 06.07.2012.  It was RTI letter  seeking relevant information with regard to the problem of defective Air conditioner.  But the 1^st opposite party has not respond. The Air conditioner is under warranty for 60 months.  But Rs.2151/- was collected charges for service. Hence the complainant prayed that replaced  Air conditioner or pay Rs.19500/- and compensation.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The opposite party deny each and every averments made by the complainant as false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  This opposite party submitted that they are not aware of the complainant’s purchase from the 2^nd opposite party.  The problem complained ended in visit inspection and taking away the air conditioner on May 2010.  It is pertinent that one year warranty hand ended, since air conditioner was purchased on 08.03.2009. On refilling of gas, demand for service charges were made for work done, since warranty of one year had expired. The opposite party understands that the complaint dated 02.06.2012 was not attended to. The complainant’s various alleged letters said to be sent to this opposite party were not received. The opposite party stated that the warranty given is one year, hence the question of 60 months dies not hold good.  It is usual business practice do repairs on charges basis for warranty expired products.  Hence this opposite party have not committed any deficiency of service.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7were marked on his side.  The 1^st opposite party had filed written version, proof affidavit, written argument and no documents was marked on their side.  2^nd opposite party and 3^rd  opposite party were set exparte.

4. Point No.1:

                     The complainant purchased a brand new Samsung 1 ton split AC manufactured by 1st opposite party and sold by 2nd opposite party on paying a sum of ₹19500/- on 08/03/2009. After a year or so, the AC started to malfunction. A complaint was raised stating the malfunction of AC and the service personnel engaged by 3rd opposite party attended the job. The 2nd opposite party after complete study of the AC unit states it was "outdoor unit leak" and took whole unit for repair to his workshop. The unit was returned in June 2010, after rectification. The cost of job was Rs. 2151/- which was paid by complainant. On 2/6/12 the AC unit stopped working and a similar complaint as previous one was raised. The complaint was unanswered and finally on 14/6/2012 and no heed was given to it as well.         An RTI was filed 06/07/2012 trusting that the opposite parties would abide by law but that also tuned non-futile. Having a 60 month warranty the complainant was charged Rs. 2151/ against the service carried out on the questioned AC. The unit suffered manufacturing defect.

          5. The complainant purchased a brand new Samsung 1 Tonne split AC manufactured by 1st Opposite Party and sold by 2nd opposite party along with 3KVA Excel stabiliser paying a sum of Rs. 19500/ vide receipt DC. No. S1/3391 dated 08/03/2009 marked as ExA3. After an year of purchase, the AC showed dysfunction, the same was raised as complaint to the view of 1st Opposite party. The 2nd opposite party being the Authorised Service partner of 1st Opposite party arrived and investigated the unit. The job sheet/work order no.4022219138 marked as Ex.A1.  A sum of  Rs.2151/- vide receipt No. 21580 was paid by the complainant against the above service marked as Ex.A2. The warranty card for the disputed AC with model name ASI2UAX2 is marked as Ex. A4. After subsequent malfunction, the complainant writes tot the 1st opposite party on 02/06/12 and 14/06/2012. The letter dated 14/06/2012 is marked as Ex.A5 and the acknowledgement is marked as Ex.A6.

          6. Perused the documents, the complainant purchased a 1 Ton split AC from 2nd Opposite party on 08/03/2009 paying a sum of Rs. 19500/- with a 12 month warranty remains undisputed. Since the AC worked well till a period of 1 year and a mal-function was witnessed only after a year of purchase which is in may 2010, after the warranty of the AC had expired. The fault mentioned in Ex.A1 is a GAS LEAKAGE- OUTDOOR UNIT LEAK CORRECTION. Since it is a gas leakage as per the warranty conditions in Ex.A4 specifies that gas charging is not covered under the warranty period of 12 months from date of purchaser.  Further the  compressor  fault which enjoys a warranty of 60 months.

          7. On perusal of  documents it is clear fact that the AC had mal-function and  needed gas recharge a year after purchase. There is no proof filed by the complainant to prove that the Air conditioner had manufacturing defect. There is no Expert opinion or evidence with regard to the same.  Though the complainant has stated that he has sent a RTI letter to the 1^st opposite party the said letter dated 06.07.2012 and reply to the same was not filed by the complainant, since the 3^rd opposite party has charged the gas after the expiry of warranty period the charging of Rs.2151/- for the same is valid and binding upon the complainant. The complainant has not stated the specific defects in the air conditioner machine. Though it is stated by the complainant that the air conditioner stopped the working on 02.06.2012 there is no proof for such contention except mentioning the same in the legal notice sent to the opposite party.  In the absence of proof of manufacturing defects in the Air conditioner machine the complainant is not entitled to seek for replacement of the machine or for refund of the value of Air conditioner. The complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party and failed to prove that the Air conditioner had manufacturing defect. Point No. 1 answered accordingly.

8. Point No.2:-

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties 1 to 3 and there is no manufacturing defect proved by the complainant and hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed in the complaint.   Point no.2 answered accordingly.

 

                        In the result the complaint is dismissed .No costs.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 26^th  day of September 2022.

 

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	05.17.2010	Authorised Service center copy.
Ex. A2		Bill for charging for gas filling.
Ex. A3	08.03.2009	Invoice is given by 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4		Warranty Card
Ex.A5	14.06.2012	Letter to Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Ex.A6		Acknowledgement card.
Ex.A7		Postal receipt.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                                -NIL-

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT