Tripura

West Tripura

CC/87/2015

Mrs. Saptaparna Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Datta, Mr.S.Mahajan, Smt.B.Sur.

23 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   87  of   2015

Mrs. Saptaparna Das,
W/O- Veda Pratim Debbarma,
Krishnanagar, Prabhat Roy Sarani,
Agartala, Tripura West.            ..........Complainant.
    
             ___VERSUS___
             
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower C,
Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, 
Gurgaon- 122 002.
 
2. The Manager,
Shree Guru Refrigeration,
Authorized Service Provider 
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Banamalipur, (Opp. to Ram Thakur Ashram),
Agartala.

3. Sur Mahal,
Subhash Park, Khowai,
Khowai Tripura
Pin- 799201.             ..........Opposite parties.
    

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant         : Sri Koushik Datta,
                       Sri Sovan Mahajan,
                       Smt. Bubli Sur, 
                       Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties        :  Sri Amritlal Saha,
                       Sri Kjal Nandi,
                       Sri Abheek Saha,
                       Advocates.                                           
          
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  23.03.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petitioner filed by Mrs. Saptaparna Das U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioners case in short is that she had purchased a front loading washing machine on 08.02.14 for consideration of Rs.43,500/-. On 12.08.15 it was detected that the machine was not working properly. The machine was not also starting at all. The matter was reported to the customer care centre of the Samsung. Service engineer visited to check the machine but could not repair it. No problem was detected also. Warranty  period was for 2 years. The motor risk cover  for 120 months. No step taken by the O.P., authorized service centre and Samsung India Ltd. for repairing of the washing machine. It was left without functioning for a considerable period. Petitioner suffered due to non functioning of the washing machine and claimed the amount of Rs.1,98,500/- as compensation.

2.        Opposite party Samsung India Ltd. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is contended that there was no manufacturing defect and the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation.

3.        Petitioner side produced the cash memo, warranty card, users manual, postal receipt, E-mail to customer care centre, demand notice, Exhibit-1 series. Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of 2 witnesses, P.W.1, complainant, Saptaparna Das, and P.W.2, Veda Pratim Debbarma, husband of the complainant.

4.        O.P. on the other hand cross examined the witness and produced no other evidence.

5.        On the basis of evidence we shall now determine the following points:
        (I) Whether the washing machine purchased by the petitioner was not functioning within the warranty period?
        (II) Whether the O.P. had any deficiency of service and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for that?

6.        To decide the above points we shall scrutinize evaluate the evidence given by the parties. After evaluation this Forum will give the decision.

        FINDINGS & DECISION:
7.        It is admitted fact that the petitioner purchased the Samsung washing machine manufactured by O.P. No.1, Samsung India Ltd. on 08.02.14. It was working without any fault for about one year. The cash memo, Exhibit 1 Series supports this fact of purchase for cash total Rs.43,500/-. Learned advocate for the O.P. pointed out that as per terms and conditions of the warranty petitioner is required to inform the company or dealer in case of changing  the address while shifting the washing machine. It is true that after purchase petitioner shifted to Agartala from Khowai. But after shifting the washing machine was quite O.K., had no complaint. The machine was shifted in the month of August, 2014. After that about one year it was working rightly and the defect was detected on 12.08.15. So, shifting has no consequence over the machine as it was functional for one year after shifting. Warranty period was 2 years from the date of purchase i.e., from 08.02.14. The warranty will be covered up to 08.02.16. But the washing machine was not working since 12.08.15. Accordingly, matter was informed to the Manager, Authorized Service Centre at Agartala on 9th September, 2015 vide Exhibit- 1 series. The matter was informed to the Samsung customer care centre. Accordingly, service engineer visited for repairing the washing machine but repairing was not done. 3 visits were done by the engineer. Complaint was registered. But no repairing done. Demand notice was given on 26.09.15. It was served upon O.P. No.1 and 2. Inspite of that nothing done for repairing. Learned advocate for the O.P.  contends that price of the parts is to be paid. What parts was required to be purchased and when it is to be paid not clearly stated through any evidence. The report of any service engineer not produced to support that the machine was not repairable. There is no evidence to support that due to fault of the petitioner the machine did not work. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the warranty paper. Its validity was for 2 years. As per terms and conditions laid down in the warranty, O.P. the manufacturer and service centre were under liability to repair the washing machine. But it failed to do so and violated the terms and conditions of warranty. It is therefore, is a deficiency of service by Samsung India Ltd. and its service centre at Agartala. 
After careful evaluation of the evidence on record it is established that the O.P. No.1 had deficiency of service, they  are under obligation to repair the washing machine of the petitioner free of cost or replace the same if not repairable within its warranty period. We are therefore of considered view that petitioner is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the deficiency of service of the O.P. No.1 and 2. She is also entitled to get Rs.5000/- towards the cost of litigation. Both the points are decided accordingly.
9.         In view of our above findings over the 2 points, this petition is partly allowed. We  direct the O.P. No.1 and 2 to repair the washing machine within 15 days and if not repairable then replace it by a new one of same model. We also direct the O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay the petitioner Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficiency of service of the O.Ps. We also direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.5000/- to the petitioner a cost of litigation. In total Rs.30,000/-. The amount is to be paid within 2 months, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. The machine is to be repaired or replaced within 15 days. Supply copy of the judgment to the parties.               
                            Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
WEST TRIPURA.