Delhi

North East

CC/156/2021

Pooja - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

22 Mar 2024

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No.156/21

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Pooja, W/o Sh. Praveen Kumar, R/o H.No. C-9/395, Ambedkar Vihar, Johripur, Delhi 95 Through SPA Holder Sh. Praveen Kumar Office at: F-49, Karkardooma Court, Delhi 32	Complainant
	Versus
1.                   2.	Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Corp Ltd. Head office at: 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram, Haryana 122202   Also at: 6th Floor, DLF Center, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001   Dee Vee Enterprises, B-133, Gali No. 4, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:   JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER  :

22.10.2021 30.01.2024 22.03.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 22.11.2015, Complainant had purchased a Samsung refrigerator along with other electronic housing appliances from the authorized dealer. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 provided 10 years warranty for the compressor of the refrigerator. It is her case that since 2015 to 2021 severally the refrigerator stopped working due to wear and tear issue and the same were diagnosed by the Complainant by called third party service. Complainant stated that due to small issues the Complainant managed to call third party workers as they took reasonable price for their services for resolving the issues of fridge. On 19.08.2021, the fridge stopped working as not cooling inside items kept in the fridge and Complainant contacted Opposite Party No. 2 for service. Opposite Party No. 2 sent his technician and demanded an amount of Rs. 470/-. Complainant paid the said amount to the technician and technician took photographs of back side of the fridge and had sent the photographs of the product for resolving the issue and they would respond the Complainant as soon as possible. After 2 days Opposite Party No. 1 called the Complainant and told that as he had resolved it from third party therefore they would not resolved/repaired the compressor under the warranty scheme. Complainant stated that he requested the Opposite Parties to resolve the issues regarding the fridge but they refused to resolve the same. On 03.09.2021, Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but Opposite Parties did not comply with the requirement of the said legal notice. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to refund to the Complainant a new fridge of same model and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing the present petition and also prayed for litigation cost.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.04.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

1. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the allegations made by the Complainant are baseless. It is admitted that the Complainant had purchased the fridge in question on 22.11.2015. After about 05 year, the Complainant approached its service centre regarding cooling of the fridge. An Engineer of Opposite Party No. 1 inspected the fridge and found that the product i.e. the fridge in question had been tempered. It was found that the said fridge had been repaired twice from the local market. Therefore, the guarantee/warranty became void. It is stated that there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No. 1.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party   No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

4. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of                   Shri Sandeep Sahajewani, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

3. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that she had purchased a fridge which was manufactured by Opposite Party   No. 1. It is her case that after about 05 year the problem regarding the cooling in the fridge had surfaced. It is her case that prior to this she used to avail the services from the local market in case there was any problem in the said fridge. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant had availed the services twice from the local market and therefore the warranty became void. The Opposite Party No. 1 has filed the warranty conditions. The relevant condition is reproduced as under:-

“Warranty is applicable only on purchases from authorized sellers and repaired at authorized service centres.”

 

4.  It is admitted by the Complainant in her complaint and evidence that she used to avail services from the local market earlier in case there was any minor issue. Therefore, it is proved that the Complainant has got her fridge repaired from local market and hence, the warranty of the fridge in question became void. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the fridge.
5. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 22.03.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)