IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 24th day of August, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal. V.S, President
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 128/2022 (Filed on 20/06/2022)
Complainant : Thomas Chandy,
Pulickamalayil House,
Madhavanpady,
Vadavathoor P.O.
Kottayam - 686010
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Samsung India Electronics Pvt. ltd.
6th Floor,DLF Centre,
Samsad Marg, New Delhi - 110001
(Adv. Manu J. Varappally and
Adv. Abheek Saha)
(2) Quality Services Samsung Exclusive
Service Centre, Vellappallil buildings,
Vadavathoor P.O.
Kottayam - 686010
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal. V.S, President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Samsung refrigerator from Pitapallil agencies Kottayam on 30/5/2014 by paying an amount of Rs.65,000/-. From March 2019 onwards the refrigerator’s compressor has been continuously failing and the technician from the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the first opposite party has replaced the compressor on 5 occasions since March2019. Eventhough the compressor of the refrigerator is covered under warranty for a period of 10 years from the date of purchase, the complainant had to spend Rs.13,160/- till date as repair cost as demanded by the second opposite party. Because of the repeated failure of the refrigerator since March 2019, the complainant has not been able to use the refrigerator and this has resulted in loss of various food materials and loss of time. According to the complainant he had spent an additional amount to purchase another small refrigerator since the Samsung refrigerator is not functional. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of 1,80,160/- as compensation to the complainant under various heads.
Upon notice from this Commission the first opposite party appeared before this Commission and filed version. Despite receipt of the notice from this Commission the second opposite party neither care to appear before the Commission nor to file version. Hence the second opposite party was declared as ex party.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows.
The first opposite party is a well reputed company and is having a very large customer base among others manufactures, the electronic appliances, mobile handsets business and having its corporate office at New Delhi. The complainant had purchased a Samsung refrigerator on 30/5/2014 at a consideration of Rs.65000. The complainant had lodged a complaint at the service centre of the first opposite party and proper services were provided to the complainant. When the complainant earlier raised a complaint regarding cooling issues in the refrigerator, the service engineer inspected the refrigerator and out of goodwill gesture replaced the compressor, door and dryer unit under warranty. The complainant again raised the similar complaint regarding the refrigerator the service centre thoroughly diagnosed the unit and informed the
complainant that the compressor and dryer needs to be replaced, the service centre also informed the complainant that since the dryer and compressor has been changed multiple times under warranty, therefore this time the unit shall be repaired on chargeable basis but the same was Denied by the complainant and he
demanded commercial solution for the same. The service centre also tried multiple times to contact the complainant regarding the repair and replacement of the unit but the complainant refused to Repair the unit. There was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. According to the first opposite party they have acted as per the terms and conditions of warranty and in compliance with law. It is submitted in the Version that the first opposite party is willing to carry out the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual. The first opposite party or their agents, dealers, service centre has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant and is not responsible or liable for the payment of any amount to the complainant.
The complainant filed the proof affidavit in Lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits A1 to A18. Sandeep Sahijwani who is the director of customer satisfaction of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibits B1 to B3 from the side of the first opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.?
- If so, what are the reliefs?
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a refrigerator from the second opposite party on 30/5/2014 which was manufactured by the first opposite party. Exhibit A1 is the retail invoice issued by the second opposite party on 30/5/ 2014. On perusal of Exhibit A1 we can see that the complainant had paid Rs.65,000/- to the second Opposite party being the price of the Samsung side by side 585 RS 21 H STWA refrigerator. According to the complainant from March 2019 onwards, the refrigerator’s compressor has been continuously failing and the technician from the second opposite party has replaced the compressor on 5 times since March 2019. It is further submitted by the complainant that even though the compressor has a warranty for a period of
10 years from the date of purchase, he had spent Rs.13,160/- as repair cost.
The complaint was resisted by the first opposite party contending that there were no manufacturing defects in the refrigerator. On a scrutiny of B2 customer service records we can see that the opposite parties replaced the compressor of a refrigerator on 4/8/2019, 29/10/2021 and 12/2/2021. The first opposite party admits that when the complainant raised a complaint regarding cooling issues as a Goodwill gesture they replaced the compressor, door and dryer of the refrigerator under warranty. It is submitted by the first opposite party that when again raised the same complaint it was informed to the complainant that the compressor and the dryer needs to be replaced, and since the dryer and compressor has been changed multiple Times under warranty the unit shall be repaired on chargeable basis.
On perusal of exhibit A18 which is the terms and conditions of the warranty we can see that the first opposite party offered 120 months warranty for the inverter compressor from the date of purchase of the refrigerator. First opposite party is under bounden duty to provide warranty coverage for the compressor of the refrigerator till 30/5/2014. Admittedly the first opposite party replaced the compressor under warranty on multiple occasions. It is further admitted by the first opposite party that when the complaint regarding the compressor again raised, they informed the complainant that since the dryer and the compressor has been changed on multiple times the repair shall be on chargeable basis. On a close and thoughtful evaluation of the conditions of the warranty we cannot see any condition to charge from the customer either to replace or to repair the compressor during the period of warranty. However, it was stated in the warranty conditions that in the event of repairs of any parts of the unit the warranty will thereafter continue and remain in force only for the unexpired period of the warranty. Thus, we are of the opinion that the first opposite party had committed deficiency in service by not rectifying the defect of the compressor under the warranty which was offered by the first opposite party for 120 months from the date of purchase.
No doubt that the act of the opposite party has caused much mental agony and hardship to the complainant. It is proved by exhibit A2, A3, A5, A8 and A11 that the second opposite party had charged Rs.13,160/- from the complainant as repair cost to rectify the defect of the compressor. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy the first opposite party is liable to rectify the defect or to replace the defective part without any cost during the period of warranty.
Admittedly, the refrigerator was used by the complainant more than 8 years from the date of purchase till the date of filing of this complaint . Though the complainant submitted that he had purchased another fridge, he did not produce any evidence to prove the same. The complainant prayed for the refund of Rs.65,000/- that is the price of the refrigerator, Rs.13,160/- which is the amount paid by him to the second opposite party as service cost and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. As discussed earlier, the complainant used the refrigerator for 8 years i.e., more than 75% of the warranty coverage period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that allowing the refund of the price of the refrigerator is not just and fair. However, considering the nature of the case and keeping in mind the salutary principles of the Consumer Protection Act, we are of the opinion that allowing compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) will meet the ends of justice. In the result we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.
- We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the first Opposite party.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest per annum from 20-6-2022 The date on which the complaint is filed till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of August, 2023
Sri. Manulal. V.S, President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of invoice dtd.30/05/14 by Pittappillil Agencies
A2 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.07/03/19 by 2nd opposite party
A3 – Copy of tax invoie dtd.29/05/19 by 2nd opposite party
A4 – copy of text messages dtd.29/06/2020 and 20/07/2020 (subject to proof)
A5- Copy of cash receipt dtd.14/08/2020 by 2nd opposite party
A6-Copy of text messages dtd.05/09/2020 and 09/09/2020 (subject to proof)
A7- copy of text messages dtd.11/02/21 (subject to proof)
A8- Copy of cash receipt dtd.23/02/2021 by 2nd opposite party
A9- copy of text messages dtd.25/02/21 (subject to proof)
A10- copy of text messages dtd.29/10,01/11 and 15/11 (subject to proof)
A11 – Copy of cash receipt dtd.06/12/2021 by 2nd opposite party
A12- copy of text message dtd.13/12 (subject to proof)
A13 – Copy of text messages dtd.09/01, 22/01 (subject to proof)
A14- Copy of text messages dtd.25/01, 26/01 and 02/05 (subject to proof)
A15 - Copy of text message dtd. 25/01, 26/01 and 02/05 (subject to proof)
A16- Copy of text message dtd.07/05 (subject to proof)
A17- Copy of text messages dtd.14/05 (Subject to proof)
A18- Copy of warranty card
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of power of attorney
B2 – Copy of customer service record card
B3 – Copy of warranty card
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
