DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.201/2015

Shri Parveen Kumar

S/o Late Surjan Lal,

R/o R-14A, Private Colony,

Sri Niwas Puri, New Delhi-110065.                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.

2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower C,

Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43,

Gurgaon-122009, Haryana, India.

2. Hyun Chil Hong,

(Managing Director)

The Westin Gurgaon No.2,

M.G. Road, Gurgaon-122002,

Haryana, India.

3. Rajender Sharma

(Additional Director)

1205 B, Deverly Park II,

DLF City, Gurgaon.

4. Audio Voice (India) Pvt. Ltd.

D-23, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,

New Delhi-110024.

                                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution        : 30.07.15             Date of Order                : 28.03.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that

1. The complainant, Parveen Kumar purchased Samsung Refrigerator Model No. RT28FAJYASA/TL from Audio Voice India Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP-4. The refrigerator was purchased on 18.03.2014. Copy of the invoice is annexed as Annexure–A.
2. The complainant averred that after installing the refrigerator at his home for some time it worked fine and thereafter the said product started malfunctioning. It is next averred that OP-4 concealed the facts that the manufacturing of the product in dispute had been discontinued by the company in 2013 due to many complaints.
3. Complainant further stated that after making various complaints, the company sent a mechanic to repair the refrigerator. The mechanic told that the compressor was not working and he demanded Rs.5,000/- as service charge. The compressor was still under warranty. Therefore, the complainant did not pay Rs.5,000/- for service and repair. On the complaint made on 09.06.2015 similar thing happened again and the mechanic again demanded Rs.5,000/- for service and repair which was not paid by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice to the OPs and after receiving the legal notice, a person came from Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and checked the refrigerator. After all the inspections, mechanic took Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant. Despite paying Rs.2,000/- the refrigerator still did not work properly hence once again a complaint was made on 05.07.2015 and a person fromOP-1 prior to checking the refrigerator demanded Rs.5,000/- as service charge stating that this was the company policy. When the complainant refused to give the amount, person went away without checking the same.
4. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, complainant approached this Forum with the prayer to direct OP-1 to rectify the manufacturing defect or replace and refund the purchasing amount of the complainant with interest. Further it is prayed that OP-1 be directed to refund Rs.2,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the person who came to repair the refrigerator. Additionally, it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.13,100/- as cost of litigation and Rs.2,000/- per date of hearing  as well and to award the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment etc.

2.      OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 resisted the complaint inter-alia by filing the written statement stating that in order to provide the customer service; OPs had taken best possible steps to resolve the present complaint. The complainant adamantly demanded refund or replacement of the said product which was denied by OPs stating it is a settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if it can be repaired. 

2.1    OPs further averred that product in question is out of warranty hence OPs are not liable for any deficiency. OPs reiterated the fact that as and when the complaint was made a technician was sent to resolve the issue. Therefore, there was no deficiency on part of OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 as they had been diligently providing the services to the complainant as and when required. In view thereof, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs being devoid of merits.

3.      OP-4 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.04.2016.

4.      Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant reiterating all the averments made in the complaint. Affidavit of Shri Anindya Bose, Authorised representative has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3.

5.      Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

6.      Arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 parties are heard and record perused very carefully.

7.      Admittedly, the complainant purchased a refrigerator on 18.03.2014. Copy of the invoice/ bill is annexed as Annexure-A. First complaint regarding the malfunctioning of the refrigerator was made on 04.06.2015 which is after the expiry of warranty period of the refrigerator. The complaint was attended and the complainant was told that the compressor was not working fine and the technician demanded Rs.5,000/- as service charge. It is pertinent to mention here that compressor was very well under the warranty period. Warranty card exhibited as Ex.CW-1/3 clearly mentions the warranty of refrigerator’s compressor as 60 months. OPs in their pleadings have nowhere specifically denied that their representative/ technician demanded Rs.5,000/- as service charge to repair the compressor which was still under warranty.

8.      On two or three occasions when the complaint was made, OPs technician demanded Rs.5,000/- for service & repair which was not paid by the complainant. On one of the occasion technician of OPs took Rs.2,000/- from the complainant as service charge. The same is not denied specifically by OPs. OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 who were under liability to fulfill the terms and conditions provided in the warranty card which they failed to do so. Hence, this Forum is of the opinion that OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 were deficient in service by not providing the services promised in the warranty card which they were required to do.

9.      In view of the facts discussed hereinabove, we allow the complaint and direct the OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 to replace / repair the compressor of refrigerator in question or alternatively pay the price of compressor to the complainant. Additionally, OP-1 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation for harassment, mental agony including cost of litigation to the complainant within two months from receipt of copy this order. Failing which OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 shall become liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the date of first reported defect that is 09.06.2015 till realization.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 28.03.19