Haryana

Ambala

CC/185/2015

Kavita Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikas Aggarwal

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :  AMBALA

                     Complaint Case No.       :      185 OF 2015

                     Date of Institution         :      06-07-2015

                     Date of Decision            :      15.07.2016                   

Kavita Bansal wife of Sh. A.P.Bansal, resident of  H.No.2292-93, Kacha Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                                  :::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                 Versus

1.           Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, (Head Office) through its Regional Manager,  2^nd 3^rd & 4^th Floor, Tower- C, Vipul Tech. Square, Golf Course Road, Sector- 43, Gurgaon-122002.

2.           M/s Shilpa Agencies through its authorized signatory, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt.

3.           Telus Global Verifacts Solutions through its authorized  signatory, 374-A, Adjoining  Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

:::::::Opposite Parties/Respondents.

       Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                     SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present:-        Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Adv. counsel  for complainant

                     Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv. counsel  for OPs No.1 & 3                  

                     OP  No. 2 ex-parte                   

             O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant  purchased  a new Samsung Refrigerator having model Name RSHIDBPE1/XTL, Serial No. B16342BS400024M  from OP No.2 vide Invoice No.  9803  dated 27-10-2009 in  a  sum of Rs. 50,500/- with the assurance of proper functioning since the same is of reputed company. After some time, the refrigerator started giving problem as the temperature of the Refrigerator shoot up abnormally and thus the complainant lodged the complaint to the authorized Service centre of OP company i.e. Arora Electronics, 21, Jain Nagar, Ambala City but on the examination, the engineers failed to detect the fault in the Refrigerator. Thereafter time and again refrigerator went out of order and complainant  lodged many complaints to authorized service  centre  of  the  OP  company vide  Receipt No. 6348 dt. 6-2-13, Receipt No. 6941 dt. 6-3-13, Receipt No. 31 dt. 17-9-13,  Receipt No. 71 dt. 12-10-13, Receipt No. 1965 dt. 8-2-14 & Receipt No. 2329 dt. 11-4-14 and at last OPs replaced the compressor of the refrigerator on 11-4-2014 and even after that the defect of the refrigerator in question could not be cured.  Feeling so aggrieved, the complainant sent e-mail to the OP No.1 i.e. mailing address of OP company on 8-6-2015 and in response to that the complainant received an e- mail from the OPs stating that the technical team inspected the unit and confirmed that it has developed a defect which is beyond repair and offered only 10% refund on the invoice value alongwith refund of the last repair charges i.e. Rs.3116/- to which the complainant denied rather requested for replacement of the refrigerator in question. On 17-6-2015, the engineer of OP No.3 service centre took the refrigerator set with them to their workshop vide document/ service  card but flatly refused to replace the same which is clearly an act of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para of the complaint.

 

2.          Notice of complaint was served upon all the OPs but OP No.2 failed to appear before the forum inspite of service through regd.post and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.8.2015. OPs no. 1 & 3 appeared through counsel and submitted reply raising preliminary objections qua non maintainability of complaint , no cause of action against the answering respondent and complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, by misrepresenting & misinterpreting  and making false allegations. On merits, it  has  been  urged that the complainant purchased the Refrigerator having good knowledge of all the terms and conditions regarding  warranty, repair  related  issues etc. and after fully satisfying herself. It has been further urged by the answering OPs that whenever the complainant approached them for any issue, OPs readily solved that issue, replaced all the parts and best service was provided, even the compressor issue of othe refrigerator was also resolved after which it was functioning properly as per the technician’s report. Further the complainant has used the said refrigerator for almost 6 years and is thus not entitled to either replacement or full refund of the refrigerator as it is the ill intention of the complainant to make wrongful gains from the OPs. However, lifting of the refrigerator in question by OPs in their workshop for repair purposes has been admitted in para 5 of the reply  submitted by the OPs. In the end, OPs No. 1 & 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

3.          To prove her version, complainant tendered her affidavit  as  Annexure C -X  alongwith  documents as Annexures C-1 to  C-12 and closed her evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs No. 1 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of one Sunil Bhargava, as Annexure R-X alongwith document as Annexure R-1 and closed evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 3.

 

4.           We have heard the Ld. counsels of the parties and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that the refrigerator of Samsung company so purchased  by him from OP No.2 started giving problem from the very beginning as the goods lying in the refrigerator was thrown out by the complainant everyday due to its improper working and thus  the refrigerator failed to perform satisfactorily inspite of repeatedly repairs by OP service centre wherefrom it is established that this model of the refrigerator is having a manufacturing defect, which is beyond the repairs of service centre.  Besides it, to strengthen his case, the complainant  has relied upon the case law reported in 2008(1) CLT Page 15 rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Soni Erricson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal and 2007 (1) CLT Page 614 passed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case titled as Head Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor and other wherein it is held that inspite of repair of mobile set, it did not work and thus observed that the handset was having inherent defects and refund of cost of mobile was ordered.  On the other hand OP’s counsel argued that OP company is the reputed company and provides world class service to its customers and the complainant has filed frivolous complaint after utilizing the refrigerator in question about 6 years only to grab compensation from the Ops and requested for dismissal of complaint and also referred the case law reported in 2011 IV CPJ Page 138 (NC) & 2013 (1) CPJ 47 ( NC) in support of his version.

 

5.           After hearing the counsel for both the parties and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the refrigerator in question of SAMSUNG Company  was  sold  by OP No.2 to the complainant on 27-10-2009. Further it is also not in dispute that the refrigerator  in question became defective during the warranty period and was repaired repeatedly by technicians of OP service centre after charging repair charges vide receipts  Annexures C-2 to C-8 and at last, complainant reported the matter to OP company vide e-mail dt. 8/6/2015 wherein the Senior executive Mr. Anuj Goyal of OP company informed vide Annexure C-10 that “ their technical team after inspecting the unit has confirmed that it has developed a defect which is beyond repair and thus offered  10% refund on the invoice value alongwith refund of last repair charges (Rs.3116/-)” meaning thereby that OP’s service centre has wrongly charged repair charges from the complainant during the warranty  period.

              From the above, it is confirmed that the refrigerator in question is now unuseable being beyond repairs and complainant has utilized the said unit w.e.f. 27-10-2009 to 6-2-2013 only i.e. about 3 ½ years without interruption as clear from receipt dated 6/2/2013 qua payment of repair charges made by complainant to the service centre of OP company and OP company has offered refund of the unit to the extent of 10% of invoice value which is on the lower side and does not appeal to us as  genuine. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of view that ends of justice would meet if 50% of invoice value of the refrigerator in question i.e. Rs.25,250/- is refunded to the complainant instead of 10% offered by the OP company vide e-mail dated 8/6/2015 (Annexure C-9 & C-10).

              So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that this model of refrigerator sold to the complainant by the OP No.2  was having inherent defect & could not be rectified by the OPs despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we accept the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:

                (i) to return Rs.25,250/- i.e. 50% of the costs of the refrigerator to the complainant after deducting 50% of cost as depreciation, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint to till its realization.

               (ii)  also to pay Rs.3000/- as costs of litigation.

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:15.07.2016                                     Sd/-

                                                                 ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                      Sd/-

                      ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                            MEMBER