BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.161 of 2018
Date of Instt. 13.04.2018 Date of Decision: 20.04.2021
Rashmi Chhabra wife of Shri Ashok Chhabra, resident of W. N. 25, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2nd/3rd/4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech. Squary, Golf Course road, Sector 43, Gurgaon- 122002 through its Incharge/authorized signatory.
2. Samsung Customer Service, Gali No.10, Backside T. V. Centre, Avtar Nagar, Jalandhar City, at present Electronic Centre, 148/1, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, through its Manager/authorized signatory.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Kunwar Sood, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Jyotsna (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that she had purchased one 1.5 Ton Split AC of the OPs vide invoice. That the air conditioning unit of AC was not working properly and accordingly, complainant was compelled to lodge complaint on 27.04.2016 with the OP No.1 and consequently on 01.05.2016 the concerned Engineer had paid visit for looking after the complaint and at the said occasion the said engineer had subsisted that Rs.2200/- were to be paid for refilling the Gas and there would be three months guarantee against the said refill. That unfortunately on 12.05.2016 itself problem reoccurred and on the said occasion service manager further charged an amount of Rs.1100/- inspite of the fact that the problem had persisted within the time period of guarantee. That on 24.05.2016 and 25.05.2016 the complainant lodged complaint with the OP. An earlier complaint is already pending, however the present complaint is being filed on subsequent cause of action on the basis of defect reported by the OPs as per receipt attached. That even during the pendency of the present complaint the problem has reoccurred and on 10.06.2017 the complainant has been subsequently compelled to get the Gas refilled on 10.06.2017 after paying an amount of Rs.2280/- vide cheque. That inspite of said refilling got done by the complainant the problem has persisted and it appears that the air conditioning unit suffered from manufacturing defect and a legal notice dated 07.09.2017 has also been served which was replied by the OP on 28.09.2017 wherein the OPs themselves offered discount. The above said act and conduct of the OP tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective AC and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 miserably failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC as the complainant has already filed a consumer complaint against the answering respondent for the same product and which is pending adjudication before the Forum and the decision of the said earlier filed complaint will operate as Res-Judicata for the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be stayed. It is further alleged that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties as answering OP has unnecessarily been impleded as party to the present complaint. The AC in question is admittedly out of warranty as the same has been alleged to be purchased on 09.05.2011 and first complaint as per the complainant has been lodged on 27.04.2016 after 5 years of extensive using of the said AC, complainant is alleging that AC in question is suffering from alleged manufacturing defect. That it is very apparent from the face of that the complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich her at the cost of answering OP by filing frivolous claim. That the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Forum as she has concealed the true and material facts. The complainant has not sought the permission of this Forum under Section 11 (2) (b) of Consumer Protection Act. It is further alleged that the complainant has sought refund of price or replacement of AC, which is not permissible under the law and also under the terms of warranty. That the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the AC is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the complaint of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1/A algonwith document Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 13.04.2018. The complaint is regarding not proper working of air conditioning unit of AC which was purchased by the complainant from OPs on 09.05.2011, vide bill No.245 as Ex.C-6. The complainant has not claimed or attached warranty card alongwith complaint. The complainant has already lodged a complaint with this Commission regarding not proper functioning of air conditioning unit of the above AC, vide complaint No.341 of 2016. The only new thing added is that during the pendency of the above complaint, the problem has reoccurred and on 10.06.2017, the complainant has subsequently compelled to get the gas refilled after refilling the problem still persists.
7. Subsequently, the earlier complaint of 341 of 2016 was decided by this Commission on 23.10.2018 and we do not find any new merits in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
20th of April 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
