DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 402 of 2022.

 

1. Sri Parikshit De,

S/O. Late Abani Mohan De,

Resident of Palace Compound, Indirapalli,

Colonel Chowhamuni, Krishnanagar,

P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist. West Tripura....................…....…...........................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 

Having its registered office at A-25, Ground Floor, 

Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial E-state,

New Delhi-110044.

 

2. M/S. Satisfaction,

Having office at 142, Motor Stand Road,

P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura. 

 

3. S. B. Electronics,

Melarmath Agartala, 

P.S.-West Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura, …...............................................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,

 

For the O.P. No.2 & 3 : In-person.   

 

F I N A L     O R D E R

 

1. Sri Parikshit De, herein after called the Complainant, has filed this complaint pleading inter alia that he purchased one refrigerator from O.P. No.2 on 11/04/2017. 

 

2. During warranty period the refrigerator developed certain fault as such the Complainant contacted O.P. No.2 in the month of December, 2021. On 06/01/2022 one technical person attended the complaint of the Complainant but could not rectify the fault. On 04/08/2022 the Complainant submitted one written complaint to the O.P. No.1 but to no good. Although the refrigerator was sold with a warranty period for 5 years and compressor of the refrigerator was for 10 years warranty period. 

 

3. The O.P. No.1 in written objection pleaded that on inspection the service engineer detected internal condenser leakage which was irreparable and such fault occurred due to mishandling of the refrigerator. The O.P. No.1 as a good gesture offered 10% refund of the said unit which was denied by the Complainant. This was not a manufacturing defect. The O.P. No.2 is a seller who sold a refrigerator and he is a commission agent of the O.P. No.1.    

Vide order dated 25/01/2023 the O.P. No.3 being the service centre of O.P. No.1 was added party who also took stand that the internal condenser was found defective after the warranty period.

 

5. The parties submitted evidence on affidavit. 

 

6.  This Commission voluntary examined Sri Shidhartha Sankar Deb  as a witness. He submitted the technical report dated 25/07/2022 and a copy also submitted to this Commission. He being computer operator submitted the report as per the report of the technician namely, Sri Raju Saha. This witness was allowed to be cross examined by the Complainant. However, the O.Ps. denied to cross examine this witness.  

 

7.  During the course of the argument Learned Counsel of the Complainant argued that the witness of this commission admitted that  unless there was leakage in the condenser at the time of manufacturing, subsequently no leakage can occurred. As such it is a manufacturing defect.                                   

 

 

8. Hearing argument of the sides the following points emerge for discussion and decision:

    (i). What was the warranty period of the refrigerator and whether leakage in internal condenser occurred during the warranty period ?   

      (ii).  Whether the O.Ps. particularly O.P. No.1 is liable to replace the refrigerator or pay compensation due to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service?    

 

9.  Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

 

10.  The warranty card shows that there was warranty for 12 months for the refrigerator however 60 months on compressor. As per the technical report submitted it appears that 1st repair was demo repair on 11/04/2017, 2nd  repair was water issue on 16/08/2018, 3rd repair was 18/01/2021 for non cooling, 4th repair was on 06/01/2022 for non cooling & 5th repair was on 16/07/2022 for internal condenser leakage which could not be repaired.  

 

11. As per witness examined by this Commission the such defects of leakage can be repaired by any other agency except Authorized Service Centre of the O.P. No.1 as the Company do not manufacture condenser separately. 

 

 

12. The Refrigerator was purchased on 11/04/2017 and overall warranty was for 12 months which expired in the month of May, 2018. As per the warranty card more than 12 months warranty was for the compressor only. As per the complaint even if the defect was detected in the month of December, 2021 it was almost after three and half years as such after the overall period of 12 months warranty.  

 

13. The statement given by the witness of this Commission in cross examination that unless there remains no leakage in the internal condenser at the time of manufacturing, subsequently it is not possible that any leakage shall occur in the condenser, is not acceptable as a gospel truth. This part of evidence is opinion  evidence which is not always a actual guiding factor to any judicial or quasi judicial Authority. More so, the witness is basically a computer operator who submitted the technical report as per the report of the technician only. Further if there was any leakage in the internal condenser at the time of manufacture, the refrigerator could not run for about 4 years i.e. up to the month of December, 2021. 

 

14.    The offer of O.P. No.1 to refund 10%  is nothing but another business policy of the O.P. No.1 partly for maintaining goodwill of the Company as well. 

 

15.    Hence, we find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1 in particular and O.P. No.2 is a commission agent of O.P. No.1 only.  We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.3, the Authorized Service Centre of O.P. No.1. 

             

      Both the points are decided accordingly.       

16. In the result the complaint is dismissed. However without cost.  

          The case stands disposed off.  

         Supply a certified copy of this final order to both the parties free of cost.                    

 Announced.

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.