DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.326 of 2016
Date of institution: 01.06.2016 Date of decision : 10.08 .2017
M.L. Bansal son of Late Vidya Sagar Bansal, Flat No.387, 4th Floor, Savitri Tower, S-3, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Floor Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon 122002 Haryana through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised signatory.
2. ACE (Samsung Authorised Service Station, E-160, Phase 7 Industrial Area, Mohali through its Managing Director/Partner/Authorised signatory.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Munish Goel, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Complainant M.L. Bansal has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant who is a retired bank official and is Senior Citizen purchased one Samsung Window AC 1.5 Ton from M/s. Bansal Electronics, SCO No.21, Sector 11, Panchkula on 20.04.2010. The AC was installed by OP No.1 at the residence of the complainant. The complainant had been getting the AC serviced from service centre from time to time since its purchase. The AC was giving satisfactory service till the evening of 03.05.2015 when its cooling suddenly stopped. The complainant made a call in the morning on 04.05.2016 at the Customer Care Helpline of OP No.1. The complainant was assured that the service engineer will be checking the AC by the evening of 04.05.2016, however, no one turned up. The complainant received message that Service Engineer Sadik Mobile No.9815692588 has been assigned the service order of the complainant. On 05.05.2016 the complainant contacted Mr. Sadik but he came on 06.05.2016 and after checking told that the gas of the AC has leaked and told that the AC has to be taken to workshop for repair and the charges would be around Rs.2700-2800 which included transportation and labour charges. The Service Engineer assured the complainant that he had checked the AC and rest of parts like Compressor, Condenser and Thermostat etc. are working properly and they have no defects. The only problem with said AC was that the gas has leaked and the same has to be filled again. The complainant was also informed that the service done would be covered with a 3 months warranty. The Service Engineer informed that the AC would be reinstalled within 3-4 days and in case the AC did not work after repair, they would repair the AC again free of cost. Thereafter, on 06.05.2016 the Service Engineer took the AC to the workshop for repairs. In the job sheet issued by OP No.2 the problem was mentioned as ‘Gas Problem’ only. Mr. Sadik on 08.05.2016 informed the complainant that the total cost for repair would come to Rs.8,400/-. He further informed that major part of the AC including Condenser is required to be changed and the changed parts would have six months warranty. He also informed the complainant that OP No.2 being the authorised service centre, would fit the original parts in the AC. The complainant consented for the repairs at a cost of Rs.8400/- although this was almost 50% of the cost of the AC when it was purchased for Rs.17,300/-. OP No.2 informed the complainant on 10.05.2016 that the AC has been fully repaired and defective parts have been replaced and that the total cost inclusive of everything comes to Rs.9,374/-. The complainant raised protest that earlier the charges was informed of Rs.2800/-, thereafter increased to Rs.8400/- and now Rs.9,374/- and if the complainant has been informed earlier before lifting the AC, then it would not have permitted the OPs to lift the said AC. Shri Bhupinder Singh, Service Engineer of the OP installed the AC on 10.05.2016 but after half an hour of running the AC, the cooling was not upto the mark. On the protest of the complainant, it was assured that as the AC has just been installed, let the AC be kept running for couple of hours and gas filled in the same alongwith other parts would start functioning. On the assurance of said engineer, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.9374.12 to the OPs. However, neither the details of the changed parts nor warranty for the same were mentioned in the receipt by the OPs. Discount of Rs.374/- shown in the receipt was also not deducted from the total cost. However, the complainant found that the AC was not functioning properly even after repairs. On 11.05.2016 in the morning the complainant made a call to Customer Care of OP No.1 and he has been informed that his earlier complaint number would remain same as they have not closed the earlier complaint and Shri Bhupinder Singh, service Engineer of OP No.2 came and after checking told the complainant that the compressor of the AC was not working and further informed that cost of change of compressor would be Rs.7,045.86. The OPs had already taken Rs.9374.12 from the OP on 10.05.2016 and asking the complainant to again spend Rs.7,045.86 for the AC. The complainant was also informed that the total cost after adding VAT would be around Rs.9100/- approximately. It appears that the OPs either had not done repair to the AC during 06.05.2016 till 10.05.2016 or with malafide intention they have removed original parts of the AC and fitted the duplicate parts which did not work even for a day. The complainant tried to contact the Manager and Sr. Engineer of the OPs on their respective mobile numbers but they did not respond. The complainant is without AC in the peak summer season and has been forced to buy a new AC. Non functioning of AC inspite of charging Rs.9374.12 for repairs by the OPs, is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund Rs.9374.12 alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of payment i.e. 10.05.2016 till refund; to pay him Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint has been contested by the OPs by filing joint reply in which it has been pleaded that the AC was not within warranty period, hence there is no deficiency in service or any manufacturing defect in the AC. It is denied that the complainant was informed that the service engineer would come to him on 04.05.2016. However, the complainant was provided the date of 06.05.2016 on which date the service engineer attended the complainant. Due repair to the AC was conducted. The re-repair could only be limited to whatever was the repair which has been carried out in the first instance. There was no defect in the AC when it was reinstalled after repairs. The payment for the repairs has been made by the complainant after duly understanding the same. The AC was more than five years old and the defect can arise at any time being an electronic and mechanical component. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1; copies of invoice Ex.C-1; service request Ex.C-2; cash receipt Ex.C-3; service request Ex.C-4 and bill Ex.C-5. In rebuttal, the counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Rana, their Manager as Ex.OP-1/1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and the OPs and gone through the contents of the file.
6. The complainant has approached the OPs due to non cooling of his AC and OP No.2 has taken the AC of the complainant to its workshop for repair and kept it there for few days and also charged Rs.9,374/- for the repair of the AC but after installation of AC after repairs, it did not work at all. The complainant again approached the customer care of OP No.1 and his complaint was registered and an engineer again visited and informed the complainant that compressor of the AC was not working and told further cost of repair would be Rs.7,045.80. After paying huge amount for repair, the AC of the complainant did not work at all. The OPs have admitted that they have brought the AC of the complainant to their service centre for checking and repair and after checking, necessary repair was done. But the AC did not work at all after due repair by the OPs and which makes them deficient in service. Though the OP No.1 has appointed engineers to check the AC of the complainant but their service was deficient.
Therefore, it seems from the conduct of the OPs that the AC is not working properly and we are of the opinion that OPs are deficient in service for not repairing the AC of the complainant despite taking consideration. The complaint stands allowed accordingly. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of repair charged from the complainant i.e. Rs.9374.12 (Rs. Nine Thousand three hundred seventy four and paise twelve only) alongwith lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) for mental tension, harassment and litigation costs.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the aforesaid awarded amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 10.08.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
