DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member        Date of filing: 24/12/2019

     CC/295/2019

M.Purushothaman,

S/o Arangath Madhavan Nair, Arakurissi,

Mannarkkad,

Palakkad – 678 582                                                          -         Complainant

(By Adv.M/s.P.Pramod & Shiju Kruiakose)

V/s

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.,

    Ground Floor, Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate,

   New Delhi – 110 044.

   (By Adv. M/s.Manimangalath Sameer Babu & Aiswarya.A)

2. M/s.Das Agencies 7/10(1),

    College Road,

    Palakkad – 678 001.                                                        -    Opposite parties

    (Vakkalath not filed)

O R D E R 

Prepared by Smt.Vidya A., Member

 1.     Pleadings of the complainant in brief.    

          The Complainant purchased a refrigerator, Model No. NT 47k 6238UTTL manufactured by the  1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party on 14/04/2018 for an amount of Rs.55,000/-. Even at the time of installation, the cooling display and system was not properly functioning and the same was duly informed to the 2^nd opposite party and it was rectified.

           After few months of purchase, the complainant noticed that, most of the time cooling was low and the matter was informed to the 2^nd opposite party and they sent a technician and he adjusted the cooling system.

            On 31/08/2019, the refrigerator stopped working totally. The complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party and registered a complaint with the 1^st opposite party on 3/9/2019. Service engineer of the opposite party inspected the refrigerator and informed that the gas is completely leaked and it has to be taken to the service centre for curing the defects. The complainant was asked to pay Rs.5000/- for transportation and as service charge. The complainant demanded that they since the product has problems from the very beginning, it is a manufacturing defect and has to be resolved free of cost. But the opposite parties did not respond to his demand.

         The complainant could not store his medicines for diabetic because of the issues in the refrigerator and he lost Rs. 14,530/-, being the cost of damaged medicines. Food items also could not be stored because of the problem.

         The complainant was compelled to purchase a new refrigerator, as the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects.

         The complainant suffered financial loss and mental stress due to the purchase of the refrigerator which became defective within 1.½ years of its purchase. It is a manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that. So he filed this complaint for directing the opposite parties

1. To replace the refrigerator with a new one or return the purchase amount of Rs.55,000/-.
2. To pay Rs.1,19,530/- as compensation for damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant and
3. To pay the ‘ Cost of this litigation’.

2.   Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version.

3.   Opposite party 1 in their version admitted the purchase of the refrigerator from the 2^nd opposite party on 14/04/2018 an amount of Rs. 55,000/-. They denied the allegation of non-functioning of the display system at the time of installation. The replacement of the said unit was done after 7 days of its purchase due to display issue only. Thereafter on 02/09/2019, cooling issue was reported and complaint was registered and on examination, it was found that the product was out of warranty. The service centre was ready to repair; but the complainant demanded for replacement. Again the complainant approached the service centre and they were ready to do service; but due to the adamant attitude of the complainant, it did not happen.

          There is absolutely no serious issue with the product, but only complaints that can be cured by service. As per warranty policy, only issues arising during warranty period will be repaired free of cost and the issues out of that will be repaired on chargeable basis. There is no manufacturing defect in the unit.  The opposite party has not committed any act of deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice. The complainant is not entitled to get the unit replaced or refunded or to get any compensation or cost and the complainant has to be dismissed.

4.   The 2^nd opposite party in their version admitted the purchase of the product from them. They contended that when they got a complaint about the product, it was duly communicated to the manufacturer, the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is only a dealer and the 1^st opposite party being the manufacturer is responsible to resolve the issue in the product. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed against them. 

5.   Complainant filed an application IA 167/20 for appointment of an expert commissioner and it was allowed. Initially appointed commissioners expressed their inconvenience to inspect the product and another expert is appointed and after inspection of refrigerator, he filed report.

6.   From the pleadings of both parties, following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the refrigerator manufactured and sold by the opposite                parties ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
4. Reliefs, if any, as cost and compensation.

7.   Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1, A2 and C1 marked. Opposite parties did not file proof affidavit. Heard the complainant.

8.   Point No.1

Complaint averment is that the complainant purchased a refrigerator which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party though their dealer 2^nd opposite party on 14/04/2018 for an amount of Rs.55,000/-. At the time of installation itself the cooling display and system was not properly functioning. It was informed to the 2^nd opposite party and they rectified it.

The functioning of the refrigerator was not satisfactory and its cooling was very low. The 2^nd opposite party’s technician inspected and rectified the defects. On 31/08/2019, the refrigerator totally stopped working.

9.   Opposite parties admit the purchase of the refrigerator. 1^st opposite party in their version stated that, the complainant purchased the Fridge on 14/04/2018 and on 21/04/2018, there was display problem and it was replaced. On 2/9/2019 cooling issue was reported and an examination it was found that the said complaint reported was out of warranty and could be rectified only an chargeable basis. There was no serious issues with the product; but only complaints that could be rectified. But the complainant was not ready for that and demanded replacement.

10. From the pleadings, it is clear that the refrigerator showed display problems, within  7 days of its purchase. The cooling issue was reported within 1.½ years. Complainant’s contention is that the issues are due to manufacturing defects in the product. In orders to prove his contention, he filed an application for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner and it was allowed. The Expert Commissioner filed report which is marked as Ext.C1.

11. The Commissioner in his report clearly states that the Refrigerator is not in working condition and its cooling system is also not working. On inspection, he found that Gas Leakage is from the Compressor and Joints. Further he states that the internal and external body has no defect and the above complaints are due to manufacturing defect.

12. So the complainant had succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the product. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

      Point No.2 to 4

13. In view of the findings in Point No.1, there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling a defective product. Further they failed to provide proper after sale service. The refrigerator which was purchased for an amount of Rs.55,000/- stopped functioning within 1.½ years. The opposite parties cannot absolve from their responsibility merely by sayings that the product is out of warranty. The refrigerator has problems from the beginning itself and the complainant lodged complaints with 2^nd opposite party. The complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the conduct of the opposite parties and they are liable to compensate the complainant for that. Since it is a manufacturing defect, the complainant is entitled to get full refund of the purchase price from the opposite parties.

        In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally.

1. To refund Rs.55,000/- being the price of the Refrigerator together with interest at 10% from 31/10/2019 (Date of complaint till realization).
2. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 30,000/- for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of this litigation.

The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

               Order Pronounced in abstentia of the author concerned on 10^th day July 2023; concurred by President & Member who conducted the proceedings.

    Sd/-

                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                               President

     Sd/-                          Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                        Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext.  A1: Invoice dtd.14-04-2018 issued by Das Agencies.

Ext.  A2: Warranty Card issued by the 1^st opposite party company               

Ext.  C1: Commission Report.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side:Nil

Cost: 20,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.