This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that he purchased one Samsung Split Air Conditioner being Model No.AS182UBF and Serial No.KG/NMR/00958/12-13 from Kankurgachi outlet/showroom of the OP2 by investing Rs.26,400/- that was installed on 24-11-2012 and a further investment of Rs.2,900/- was made for that purpose and total Rs.29,300/- was paid for the purpose of installing the same Samsung Split Air Conditioner.
But after few days from the date of installation the said air conditioner was not properly functioning and practically due to non-cooling problem which was brought to the notice of the OP2 in the month of February, 2013 and it was placed before the OP1 being complaint no.41535881271 and against that OP1 inspected the machine took the same to their workshop and after middle of March, 2013 same was installed.
But subsequently, after that it occurs same problem at the end of April, 2013 that was also brought to the notice of the OP2 and several technicians came and visited the house of the complainant, repaired such defects but none of them were able to repair such defects finally and being dissatisfied with such a dealing and deficiency complainant made grievances to the executive management to their OP1 on their website. Thereafter, it was repaired and reinstalled in 24-05-2013 but problem remained same and that was reported to CEO by E-mail. Again such not-cooling problem was found as it is. So, in the month of June, 2013 a further complaint was lodged and it was reported by the OP1 that OP3 look after the matter and on 17-06-2013 technician of the OP Uttam Das took away the said defective machine and after few days instead of replacing the said defective machine OPs have started pressurizing the complainant to take back the said defective machine once again on the trivial ground that the changing of a sole product is not permissible under the policies of the company even if customer is provided with such a malfunctioning unit at the same time one Abhijit Mitra, representative of the OP3 by denying their liability and responsibility of good service and fair trade practice, informed complainant on 06-07-2013 that there is no defect in the internal part of the machine as the said machine is impeccable. However, on 09-07-2013 the complainant also made a reply to it, none of them was bothered to give any answer.
Being disgusted and dissatisfied with the customer dealing and finding no other alternative for removal of the said defect of the OPs complainant lodged a complaint to CA&FBP but however, OP did not turn up and complainant was asked to go to the Forum and accordingly, for unfair trade practice and for not rendering sufficient manner of service complainant has filed this complaint for proper redressal.
On the other hand OP1 Samsung India by filing written statement submitted as and when any problem was found by the complainant that was properly redressed by the service centre always but on proper inspection and checking no defect was detected in the internal unit but only flare nut operation was defective which was repaired and accordingly the set was become OK but all other allegations of the complainant is completely false and fabricated and OP strongly denied this allegation and fact remains there is no gross negligence on the part of the OP because they always properly redressed and in the same intention OP took back the said machine and thereafter free from all defects and there is no manufacturing defect.
On the other hand, OP2 by filing written statement submitted that he is the dealer and seller of the goods of Samsung Company and not the manufacturer and no doubt it is the liability of the Samsung Company to give proper redressal and OP2 has no liability in this regard but even then OP is always given proper redressal by sending the complainant to Service Centre who also rendered service and so, the allegation against the OP2 is completely false because the manufacturer shall have to look after the matter and it is their liability to attend the customer, repairing and also for giving the customer satisfaction and question of replacement etc. shall be decided by the company the OP1 and in the above circumstances, OP2 has prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with Reasons
On overall evaluation of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also the complaint and written version including the answer made by the complainant against the question of the OP1 it is clear that complainant admitted that the Service Centre or Engineers of the OP1 always attended the complaint of the complainant and examined the machine at his house and 8 engineers visited his house on different occasions and it is also admitted by the complainant that machine was lastly taken to the service centre for the 3rd time in June, 2013 and OP1’s Service Centre engineer repaired it and replaced but on last occasion when they take it back, he came to learn that the said unit shall be replaced after repairing but complainant refused to take back it on the ground that no way the product is replaced and he also came to know that flair end was repaired but new machine shall not be replaced for which he did not received it back.
Considering the above fact it is clear that OP always attended the grievance of the complainant and forthwith repaired it and reinstalled it but complainant’s main grievance is that the machine is not cooling and it is the main contention of the complainant if the air condition machine is unable to cooling then what is the necessity to purchase a new Samsung Manufactured Air conditioner machine by paying such a high cost.
In respect of that grievance we have gathered that no doubt complainant since its purchase has been facing cooling trouble and it is true that more than 8 engineers visited the house of the complainant, examined the machine, but till now, they have failed to remove the said defects. So, apparently we have gathered that one person must not have to purchase such air-conditioner machine which is unable for cooling the room. Fact remains that there was problem in respect of cooling. So, invariably in between the period of 20-11-2012 to June, 2013 within warranty period at least for 6 to 7 time non-cooling problem was found and it was repaired but ultimately that problem was not cured then how the Samsung India Company said that it is a defect free product. In this regard without any hesitation it is to be mentioned that in the air-conditioner if it is found not cooling then invariably whole system is defective and it is a gross defect for which within 6 months from the date of purchase 7 to 8 times non-cooling problem was found and complainant after investing more than Rs.26,000/- did not get proper service from the said machine. Truth is that engineers went to give service but ultimately air condition unit i.e. the machine had not been properly cooling. So, considering that fact it is clear that defect must be there for which at least for 7 to 8 times 8 engineers visited and checked the same but failed to recover the ill-health of the said machine that is non-cooling. Then what is the necessity for purchasing such a high price machine from Samsung Company, a world renowned company. Fact remains such a machine is a daily botheration of a customer. In view of the fact in place of getting cool breez they were sweating always and for the purpose of repairing of the said machine complainant and their family members are hunting from one service centre to another service centre of OP for redressal but ultimate result is that particularly the OP1 has failed to supply any such certificate to the effect that the said machine is free from defect and it shall not create any problem in future regarding problem of not-cooling. It indicates that Samsung India Company has adopted an unfair trade practice because Samsung must have to know at first that consumer satisfaction is the first criteria of any corporate agency like Samsung India. It is their duty not to sell any goods to the customer so that customer after purchase shall not face any problem to enjoy it. Particularly, in respect of air conditioner if it is found that within 6 months, cooling problem was detected 8 times, in that case, so, it was/is the moral and legal duty as a corporate OP1 to replace the same but without giving any such relief by filing written statement OP has tried to convince that there is no defect. Even a non-sense cannot believe that the said air conditioner machine has no defect in the present situation. Fact remains that different air conditioner companies are selling their defective machineries in such a fashion and in this case it is proved that this machine is not fit for cooling for which that machine faced problems 7-8 times and their 8 engineers failed to regularize the problem. So, invariably complainant did not receive back it when it was not replaced.
In fact, consumerism in India has failed to give such lesson to the corporate concerned for which different corporate concern like Samsung, Godrej, Hitachi and others are selling defective articles to the purchaser but when the consumers will revolt all over the India, all corporate concerns shall be shaken by that and for lack of consumer movement till today consumers are being deceived by the corporate concerns like the OP and others and in place of giving proper satisfaction to the customer such a company like OP1 and others appear before this Forum to prove that allegation of the complainant is false but we have minutely considered the entire materials and on evaluation we are confirmed that the machine is defective one and invariably the OP must have to replace the same or refund or refused the price amount without further harassment when already purchasing the disputed machine complainant has been harassed for last one year but even then the OPs as dealer, seller and manufacturer have not realized that it is their fault and it is their duty to replace it and being disgusted with the engineers of the OPs and their trends to refuse prayer for replacement complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum for which invariably OP shall have to pay compensation for harassment and cost of litigation.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed against OPs1 and 2 on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- each and same is allowed ex parte against other OPs but without any cost.
OPs1 and 2 are hereby directed to replace a new Samsung Split Air Conditioner set in place of old one within one month from the date of this order in the house of the complainant at OP’s cost and if they fails to do so, in that case refund entire purchase amount of Rs.26,400/- including installation cost that is totaling Rs.29,300/- within one month from the date of this order and also shall have to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and for not satisfying the complainant’s grievance in time and same shall also be paid within one month from the date of this order.
OPs1 and 2 are hereby directed particularly to comply the order within one month from the date of this order positively failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order per day penal interest at the rate Rs.200/- shall be charged till full satisfaction of the decree and if said amount shall be collected it shall be deposited to the Forum’s account and even then if OPs fail to comply the order in that case penal action shall be started against them u/s.27 of the C.P. Act.
