Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/167

Ashok Narang - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Nirmal Singh Sandhu

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        167

Date of Institution :   26.11.2015

Date of Decision :     02.06.2016

 

Ashok Narang, aged about 60 years s/o Des Raj Narang s/o Sh Mohan Lal Narang r/o New Harindra Nagar, Street No. 3, Near Joginder Singh MLA, Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd Company, 1-2-3-4 Floor Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 45, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon Haryana through its Chairman/ MD/General Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2. Incharge/Proprietor/Partner, Samsung Service Centre, SCO No. 9, Baba Farid Market, Opposite Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

3. Proprietor/ Partner, Bunny Electronics, Back side Jubilee Cinema, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                       ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Lakhwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective refrigerator or return the entire price of said fridge and for also directing Ops to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses.

   2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a refrigerator make Samsung of 245 litres from OP-3/the authorized dealer of OP-1 for Rs17,000/-vide bill no. 2650 dated 23.02.2015 alongwith two other articles worth Rs.24,000/- and Rs13,500/- and total bill amounted to Rs54,500/-. At the time of purchasing the said articles, OP-3 gave warranty for three years on all articles and OP-3 installed all these articles in the house of complainant, but even after few days of installation of refrigerator in his house, it got cracked from inside due to some manufacturing defect. Complainant immediately approached OP-3 and told him about the said defect in refrigerator in question and requested him to replace the same or to pay the entire price of said refrigerator, but OP-3 kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to replace the same. Complainant also made complaint to OP-1 at Toll Free No. 180030008282, but it also did not take any action. Thereafter, complainant made written request to Op-1 vide letter dt 16.11.2015, but OP-3 openly refused to accept the genuine request of complainant and paid no heed to the complaint made by him. Complainant made many requests to Ops to repair the same, but all his efforts to get it repaired bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 1.12.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

   4                                                On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and it is liable to be dismissed. It is brought before the Forum that refrigerator in question is mishandled by complainant, which lead to cracking of its inner liner in the month of October, 2015 and on complaint dt 27.10.2015 of complainant to OP-2, when a Service Engineer visited the house of complainant to fill up the cracks in the inner liner of said fridge, complainant refused to get it repaired and insisted for replacement repeatedly. It is further averred that as and when complaint was lodged by complainant, Ops duly attended the same, but complainant himself did not permit the Service Engineer to fill up the cracks in the inner liner of fridge and now, he has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive to get undue advantage from OPs. Moreover, no legitimate ground is set out to entitle the complainant for replacement of said fridge or refund of price of fridge because defect arisen in fridge is repairable. It is submitted that complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his case. Replacement or refund is not permissible as replacement or refund is permissible only in case when defect developed within the period of warranty is not repairable, but in the present case, defect of cracks is repairable and Service Engineer of Ops went to the place of complainant to fill the said cracks, but complainant refused to get repaired his refrigerator and insisted for replacement or for refund of cost price of said fridge. There is no manufacturing defect in said article and replacement is permissible only of defective parts. However, on merits, OPs admitted that complainant purchased the said article from OPs, but have denied all the other allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs as OPs sent the Service Engineer of Ops to the house of complainant to fill the cracks on the inner line of fridge, but complainant himself refused to avail the services provided by OPs and did not allow him to repair the said refrigerator and insisted for replacement with new one or for refund of price of said refrigerator. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint.

   5                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 7 and then, closed the evidence.

   6                                           The ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Anindya Boss as Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 4 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

   7                                We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

   8                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a refrigerator make Samsung of 245 litres from OP-3 for Rs17,000/-vide bill no. 2650 dated 23.02.2015 alongwith two other articles. It is contended that at the time of purchase, OP-3 gave warranty for three years on all articles and also installed all these articles in the house of complainant, but even after few days of installation of said refrigerator in his house, it got cracked from inner side due to some manufacturing defect. Complainant immediately informed OP-3 and told him about the said defect in refrigerator and requested him to replace the same or to pay the entire price of said refrigerator, but OP-3 kept putting off the matter on lame excuses and ultimately refused to replace the same. It is further contended that complainant also made complaint to OP-1 at their Toll Free number, but of no use. Complainant further sent written request to Op-1 vide letter dt 16.11.2015, but OP-3 flatly refused to accept the genuine request of complainant and paid no heed to his requests. Several requests made by complainant to Ops to repair the said fridge, bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Prayer for accepting the present complaint is made. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 7.

   9                               To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs averred that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and therefore, complaint filed by him on false grounds is not maintainable in this Forum and is liable to be dismissed. Ld Counsel for OPs disclosed that refrigerator in question is mishandled by complainant, which lead to cracking of its inner liner in the month of October, 2015 and on complaint dt 27.10.2015 made by complainant to OP-2, OPs sent a Service Engineer, who visited the house of complainant to fill the cracks and to remove the defect that occurred due to sole negligence and poor handling of fridge by complainant, but complainant refused to get it repaired and insisted for replacement only. It is further averred that complaint made by complainant was duly attended by OPs immediately and a Service Engineer was sent to his house, but complainant himself did not permit the Service Engineer to fill up the cracks in the inner liner of fridge and now, he has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive on false grounds to get undue advantage from OPs. Moreover, there is no manufacturing defect in the said fridge and thus, no legitimate reason can be made out to entitle the complainant for replacement of said fridge or refund of price of fridge because defect that has occurred in fridge is repairable. Also, complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove his case. Replacement or refund permissible only in case when defect developed within the period of warranty is not repairable, but in instant case, defect of cracks in inner lining is repairable and Service Engineer of Ops went to the place of complainant to fill the said cracks, but complainant refused to get repaired the same and insisted for replacement or for refund of cost of said fridge. There is no manufacturing defect in said article and replacement of only defective parts is possible. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OPs  as they sent their Service Engineer to the house of complainant to fill the cracks on the inner line of fridge, but complainant himself refused to avail the services and did not allow him to repair the said refrigerator and insisted for replacement or refund of price of said refrigerator. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs as they have always been ready and willing to repair the refrigerator and there is no manufacturing defect in refrigerator in question. Counsel for Ops has made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

   10                         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. At the outset it is worthwhile to mention that since order in favour of the complainant has to adversely affect the reputation of the opposite parties besides financial setback, therefore, strict proof is required in this case. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a refrigerator make Samsung for Rs17,000/-from OPs vide bill dt 23.02.2013 Ex C-2. Said refrigerator became defective and complainant made complaint with OPs on their helpline number and also vide letter dt 16.11.2015 Ex C-3, but despite his repeated requests, OPs neither replaced the defective refrigerator nor refunded the price of said fridge. In reply, stand of OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in said fridge and defect that has arisen in that refrigerator, is, due to negligence and poor handling of complainant. On complaint of complainant they sent a Service Engineer on 27.10.2015 to remove the defect and to fill the cracks developed in inner lining of refrigerator, but complainant refused to avail the services of engineer and insisted for replacement only. Ex OP-2 and 3 are copies of  job sheets showing clearly that OPs sent a Service Engineer to remove the defect and to fill the cracks in refrigerator in question. Careful perusal of document Ex Op-4, which is a copy of e-mail reveals that there is defect of liner crack on the bottom of refrigerator and complainant wants replacement for this. Replacement of refund is not permissible in cases, where defect is removable and repairable. Moreover, the complainant alleged that the cracks in the inner liner of refrigerator appeared after two months of purchase, but he failed to produce any evidence in his support. He made complaint for the first time in October 2015 and on this complaint, OPs duly visited the house of complainant and checked his fridge, but in the complaint, he pleaded that OPs never checked his fridge and on the other hand in his letter dt 16.11.2015, he himself admitted that OPs visited his place and inspected his refrigerator, which clearly show his malafide intention. Therefore, we have found that evidence produced by the complainant is totally unreliable and unworthy of any credit. Consequently, complaint filed by the complainant is found to be meritless and as such the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances there is no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 2.06.2016

   Member                Member            President (Parampal Kaur)         (P Singla)             (Ajit Aggarwal)