Tripura

StateCommission

A/53/2023

PARIKSHIT DE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. S. DAS, MRS. M. SAHA (DEB), MR. S. CHOUDHURY

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

Heard Mr. Sampad Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Kajal Nandi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Also heard Sri Partha Bhowmik who has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 and Sri Shidhartha Deb who is present on behalf of the respondent no.3.

1. The facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased a refrigerator of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. on 11.04.2017. It is an admitted position that since the date of purchase of the refrigerator, there were so many complaints about gas-leakage and other cooling factors, and on receipt of such complaints, the respondents used to rectify/repair the defective components of the said refrigerator and finally the condenser of the refrigerator/fridge became non-functional. The appellant then approached the respondents to repair the same, but the respondents informed him that since the warranty period expired in the meantime, there is no scope of repairing the condenser.
2. Being aggrieved of the response of the respondents, the appellant had approached the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala by filing a complaint petition against the respondents.
3. After recording of evidence and on hearing learned counsel of both the parties, the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala had passed final order dated 02.09.2023 holding that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties-respondents and accordingly dismissed the complaint petition.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 02.09.2023, in connection with Case No.C.C.402 of 2022, passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala, the complainant i.e. the appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
5. At the outset, we have perused the final order passed by the learned District Commission. Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the order read as under:-

“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.”

6. Having observed thus, the learned District Commission had dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant-appellant.
7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that it is not the single incident that the condenser became non-functional. Prior to that, there were so many complaints about smooth functioning of the refrigerator and every time the respondent-opposite parties repaired it though the appellant-complainant had sought replacement of the fridge when the complainant and the respondents jointly and severally found the manufacturing defects of the said fridge.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the respondents are ready to rectify the defects, but for that necessary costs to rectify the same have to be borne by the appellant-complainant since warranty period has already been expired in the meantime.
9. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. There is no dispute that since the date of purchase, the appellant-complainant had faced lot of inconveniences with the concerned fridge which was purchased from the respondents. On each and every occasion, the appellant-complainant wanted to replacement of the said fridge as it is an admitted position that the fridge was having manufacturing defects on so many components. It is the plea of the appellant-complainant that the defect of the condenser is related to those components which were found defective during the operation of the fridge for the last five years. So, it is clear that the complaint as regards the functioning of the fridge was not a new one, but it is a continuous recurrence cause of action to file the instant complaint and his demand for replacement of the said fridge cannot be said to be stopped.  
10. Having perused the order of the learned District Commission, we find that the learned District Commission did not believe the statements made in cross-examination by one of the witnesses of the opposite parties-respondents in respect of technical aspect 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.
11. The learned District Commission came to a finding that it is an opinion evidence which cannot be the guiding factor to any judicial or quasi-judicial authority. More so, the maker of the statement had no expertise to depose like that since he was a mere computer operator and not an engineer in the stream of refrigerator.
12. Since, admittedly, the fridge was running for last five years with so many complaints, we are of the opinion that the demand raised by the appellant-complainant during the period of five years for replacement of the said fridge was/is a genuine one, which resulted continuous/recurrent cause of action to file the complaint by the complainant/appellant. No consumer should be suffered by selling or trading of such type of fridge having manufacturing defects.
13. It reveals from the record that the complainant, since the time he purchased the fridge in question was complaining about the reduced cooling. There is no quarrel in the bar that the condenser plays a vital role in the cooling system of the fridge. The function of the condenser in a refrigeration system is to transfer heat from the refrigerant to another medium, such as air and/on water. The three main functions of the condenser are condensing, desuperheating, and subcooling. So, it is an air-cooled device, which was found defective since very beginning, as we observed earlier and the technician visiting to repair the fridge despite being understood suppressed it. Here, the respondents caused deficiency in service for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. Learned District Commission while rejecting claim of the complainant failed to appreciate that due to insufficient removal of heat from the refrigerant, the concerned fridge purchased by the complainant/appellant was suffering from reduced cooling since its installation.  Having found the above deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties, we are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the condenser abruptly became functionless after the expiry of five years because the condenser is directly related to the cooling system of the fridge.
14. In the light of above, we are not in agreement with the findings and decision of the learned District Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents-opposite parties.
15. Having held so, we direct the opposite parties, the respondents herein, to replace the refrigerator/fridge of the appellant-complainant within a period of seven days from today and the respondent no.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only to the appellant-complainant within a period of two weeks from today.

With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala stands set aside and quashed.