Judgment : Dt.7.11.1017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Kanai Chandra Ray, B IV Flat-11, Shri Ram Estate, 129, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700 008 against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 202, OP No.1, Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Td., 102, Diamond Harbour Road, Behala, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 034, OP No.2 and S. N. Enterprise, 61/1, Prince Gollam Hossain, Kolkata-700 032, OP No.3 praying for a direction upon the O.P. to refund the cost of the fridge amounting to Rs.24,200/- for the deficiency of service and direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per day for 23 days when the fridge remained dysfunctional and caused harassment to the Complainant and direction upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of spoilt item and a direction upon the OP to pay the cost of the proceeding.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a retired person aged about 64 years old. He purchased a fridge SAMSUSNG RT-28K3083SP/253 LTR REF from Great Eastern Trading, Kolkata, on 16.5.2016 after the sales staff impressed upon him that fridge was a current model and having “Digital Inverter Technology”. The fridge was delivered on 18.5.2016. On 11.8.2016 it was noticed that the fridge was not functioning and a call was booked on the same day under reference No.4219433209 using SAMSUNG helpdesk. The service engineer arrived after a lapse of 20 hours. That officer named Samir informed Complainant that another engineer Dipankar will come. Dipankar examined the fridge and said that he suspected the inverter PCB is defective and asked for replacement from his office. On the next day he came back and showed a replacement PCB which he installed, after which he declared that the compressor is defective and suggested for replacement of the fridge. Complainant asked the engineer how this could happen. But, he had no answer. On 16.8.2016 two engineers attended the fridge heavily equipped with all tools and fixture for gas welding, compressor, etc. They set up a mini workshop. They worked for three hours, but, yielded no result. After confirmation from their seniors they communicated that fridge would be taken to their workshop and there was no commitment for replacement. Thereafter, one service engineer from Samsusng Enterprise came who told that ‘your fridge is under observation’. Seeing no hope, Complainant sent e-mail to the executive team on 22.8.216. But, the fridge could not be replaced. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. OP No.1 has denied that there is any cause of action and Complainant is not entitled to any compensation which he has prayed. Complainant miserably failed to prove the manufacturing defect for replacement. OP No.1 has also cited several judgment in his written version to establish that Complainant failed to prove the allegation and so there is no question of refund of money and also replacement of the refrigerator.
OP No.2 has filed written version and denied the allegations of the Complainant. OP No.2 has stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. OP No.2 has also stated that the Complainant purchased a fridge after payment of price of Rs.24,200/- from OP No.2. OP No.2 has submitted that it is a dealer and not the manufacturer of Samsung fridge. Dealer is abided by the rules and regulations of the principle of the manufacturing Company and dealer has no role regarding replacement of the Samsung fridge. OP No.2 further submits that there is no circumstances with this OP and is not liable for the refund of the amount as prayed for. So, this OP has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint to which OP Nos.1 & 2 put questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.1 & 2 filed affidavit-in-chief wherein they have reiterated the facts mentioned in their respective written version. To this Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.24,200/-. In this regard, it appears that there is no dispute that Complainant purchased a refrigerator from OP No.2 being the dealer of OP No.1 and paid Rs.24,200/-. On perusal of the respective affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply, it appears that the refrigerator which Complainant purchased was defective one and it got defect which could not be cured by the OPs even within the warranty period which inputs liability upon them to refund the price and they cannot evade it. Similarly, Complainant has prayed for payment of Rs.500/- per day for 23 days when the fridge remained dysfunctional and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
On perusal of the questionnaire, affidavit-in-reply of the respective parties, it is clear that Complainant got a refurbished fridge after about 23 days and that fridge is at present in working condition. At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate for Complainant submitted that since he paid full price for a new fridge why he will accept a refurbished fridge. Countering to it, Ld. Advocate for OPs submitted that it is not possible for them to replace the fridge.
It is clear that the defect occurred in the fridge during warranty period for which OPs took step and Complainant remained perturbed. Not only that Complainant has alleged that within a period of three months the refrigerator became dysfunctional. This is most unfortunate and harassment for a consumer who after paying full price purchased a new equipment for comfort.
As such, we are of the view that OPs are liable for deficiency in service and also for causing mental torture, harassment and agony to the Complainant for which Complainant is entitled for replacement of the fridge by a new one or refund of the total price which he paid, with interest. In addition, Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- which Complainant has prayed.
Hence,
ordered
CC/222/2017 is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/-. OPs are directed to replace the fridge by a new one within one month of this order, in default they are directed to pay Rs.24,200/-, in default this amount shall carry interest @ 10%p.a. from the date of this order. OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within two months of this order, in default this amount shall also carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
