Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/46

Ankur Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jawahar chandan

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                                                   Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2022

                                                                   Date of Decision:  31.03.2023

 

Ankur Malohtra son of Naresh Kumar Malohtra C/o Malohtra Medicos, Near Civil Hospital, Sri Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib,  District Rupnagar  

                                                                                      …..Complainant

                                                 Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, 6^th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, through its CEO
2. Vinod Trunk House, Khwaja Peer Road, Raj Nagar, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar  

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

 

                   KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER 

                   RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

 

For complainant:            Sh. Jawahar Chandan, Advocate

For OP1:                        Sh. Arvind Kumar Rishi, Advocate   

 For OP2:                       Sh. Aman Bajaj, Advocate.     

 ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the complainant had purchased the AC make Samsung 1.5 Ton from the OP2 vide invoice No.5094 dated 05.03.2020 and from the very first day of installation, the AC in question did not provide the cool air and the matter had been reported to the customer care numbers of the OPs on many occasions. On repeated requests of the complainant, the compressor of the AC in question was replaced by the OP and assured that the matter has been resolved and it otherwise proved the point of complainant that the AC unit was defective from day one. Although, the complainant was made to believe that the matter has been resolved and complainant was assured that the AC will work properly but even after that the problem persisited and same did not provide the cooling at all and the complainant had been making requests again and again but all in vain. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint. The complainant sought the following reliefs against the OPs:-

1. To replace the AC in question with the new one and further OP be ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on account of mental agony and physical harassment. 

2. Upon notice, OP1 has appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections; that the complaint is mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP; that no cause of action has arose in favour of the complainant. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has purchased the AC in question on 5.3.2020 and warranty period of one year expired on 4.3.2021 and during this period no complaint was lodged by the complainant but the complainant has lodged the first complaint with authorised service centre of answering OP in the month of July 2021 and the same has been duly attended and rectified by changing the compressor of the AC In question on 8.7.2021. After changing the compressor of the AC in question, the same has working properly. Then the complaint has been lodged on 14.8.2021 and service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the product, but there was no defect and AC in question was working properly. The answering OP has also stated that as and when the complainant lodged the complaint, the answering OP rectified the defect in question of the AC in question. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. Upon notice, the OP2 has also appeared and has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Commission. On merits, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the complaint against the answering OP. 
4.  In order to prove the case, the learned counsel for the parties have placed on record the certain documents and have closed their evidence respectively. 
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the complaint file along with documents very minutely.
6. The complainant has purchased AC make Samsung 1.5 ton vide invoice No.509 dated 05.03.2020, the fact admitted by the OP. However, the complainant made a first complaint that AC unit did not provide the cool air on the customer care number to the OP on many occasions and the same are registered as 4281266590, 431109923, 4326411568, 4320912075.  On the repeated complaints and the request of the complainant, the compressor of the outdoor unit of the AC was replaced by the company on 08.07.2021 by OP1. But the complainant was not satisfied as the same problem was persisting onward.
7. The OP in its written reply, stated that the warranty period of the Unit expired on 04.03.2021 whereas the complainant lodged the first complaint in the month of July 2021, which was duly attended and reported problem of low cooling has been duly rectified by changing the compressor on 08.07.2021. After changing the compressor, the AC in question was perfectly working. Then the complainant again made a complaint for the same problem on 14.8.2021 and the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and check the product but there was no defect and AC in question was working properly. Thereafter, the complainant again lodged the complaint on 30.09.2021 but on this time, the complainant did not allow the service engineer to inspect the product. But at the time of visiting of the engineer, the AC in question was running in the shop of the complainant. Hence, no cause of action arose to the complainant. The OP stated that complaint has been filed with mischievous intention and the claim of the complainant is frivolous. The complainant as and when has lodged the complaint with the authorized service centre/customer care and the same has been attended by the service engineer. Hence, OP claim that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The OPs have also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled as Dr. Hema Vasantilal Dakora Vs Bajaj Auto Limited and Ors, reported at II (2005) CPJ 102 (NC) and other case titled as Sushila Automobiles Limited Vs Dr. Birendra Narain and Ors, 3 (2010) CPJ 130 (NC). The OPs have also placed reliance of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Stereocraft Vs Monotype India Limited, New Delhi (2000, NCJ (SC) 59 and in case titled as Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Sushil Kumar Gabgotra (2006) 4 SCC 644. 
8. In view of the above, the bench has observed that since the complainant has purchased the unit on 5.3.2020 and lodged the first complaint in the month of July 2021, if there have been low cooling then it would have been from the very beginning. It is clear that it was not a manufacturing defect in the AC. It is also admitted fact that AC unit was installed at the shop which is a commercial establishment. Hence, a constant running of the AC in question is not disputable.  As the complainant has not made any complaint during the warranty period rather made a complaint after the lapse of one year and four months. There may be a wear and tear of the unit. However, whenever, the complainant made a complaint to the OP, the OP immediately deputed the service engineer to check and rectify the problem , the OP even change the compressor of the AC in question. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the complaint of the complainant as the complaint is made after the warranty period.
9.   In view of our above discussions and the law laid down by the higher authorities in various judgments, the complaint is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Free certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:31.03.2023

 

 

 

          (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)        (Ranvir Kaur)               (Kuljit Singh)

          Member                                  Member                         President