Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 132.
Instituted on : 03.03.2017.
Decided on : 14.05.2019.
Devender Hooda son of Sh. Ram Senahi, age 65 years, resident of Devak Ram Bhawan, Civil Lines, Chottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, now residing at H.No. 44, HUDA, Sector-4, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Ms. Guru Kirpa Sales, Chottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak-124001 through its Proprietor, current address: Shop No. 2, Heera Panna Complex, Near Durga Bhawan Mandir, Opp. Tikana Sahib Gurudwara, Rohtak.
2. B2X Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Near Daikin Showroom HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002.
4. Goel Enterprises near Verma Electronics Palika Bazar, Rohtak through its Proprietor Piyush Goel.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Yogender Dalal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Shailender Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite
party No. 1.
Sh. Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite parties No. 2 and 3.
Sh. Pawan Jangra, Advocate for opposite party No. 4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a refrigerator, double door bearing model No. RT 31 HCUX1/CTL, Serial No. R0144PABC00147Y of Samsung Company from the opposite party no. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. That the refrigerator was manufactured by opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 1 is authorized dealer and opposite party no. 2 is authorize service center of said company. It is alleged that from the day of purchasing of said refrigerator, it was suffering from a defect i.e. leakage of water and auto cut of electricity after the leakage. Complainant reported the matter to the opposite party No. 1 within one month of its purchase, but despite that opposite party No. 1 had not removed the defect of refrigerator. The warranty card of the refrigerator was kept by the opposite party No. 2 on the very first visit and was not returned back to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 in connivance with the opposite party No. 3 tried to pass the warranty time so that the complainant would not be able to ask for refund/replacement of refrigerator. That the complainant has made so many complaints i.e. 34 complaints as mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint w.e.f. 27.08.2015 to 19.09.2016 for the alleged defect in the refrigerator but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties. That on every visit, the engineers of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 charged Rs.342/- from the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 24,000/-, more than Rs. 20,000/- paid to opposite party No. 2 for visit/repair/service charges and Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith 18% interest per annum from the date of purchase of refrigerator till the actual realization and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party was only dealer of respondent No.3, hence there is no responsibility qua the answering respondent. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party no. 1.
3. Respondent No. 2 and 3 in their reply has submitted that the company provides one year comprehensive warranty on the unit and further four year extended warranty only for the compressor of the unit and warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy. It is further submitted that the complainant approached to the answering respondents so many times. The engineer of the company visited the house of the complainant every time and thoroughly checked the unit and told that the unit is out of warranty as the company provides one year of warranty and the repair shall be on chargeable basis and gave the estimate of repair. The complainant again approached to the answering opposite parties on dated 14.07.2016 and after checking the relay of compressor and dryer was changed and the unit started working properly. That complainant again approached on 18.07.2016 but no issue was found. Again vide call No.4218968794 on 04.08.2016 and 4220003183 on 21.08.2016, the complainant reported some issues in his unit. The engineer of company checked the unit and found that duct of the unit was damaged due to the negligence or mishandling of the complainant. Also the engineer told that the unit of complainant cannot be considered under the warranty policy and the repair was done on chargeable basis. That complainant was told that company is ready to refund the depreciated amount for the unit of the complainant only on account of goodwill gesture as the unit has been used by the complainant for approximate four years seven months. The complaint agreed upon the depreciated refund drawn by answering opposite party in favour of complainant and it was informed to the complainant that returned order has been created and to receive the DD from the service center, Rothak. But the complainant denied to collect the DD of refund and without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. Opposite party No.4 made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.4.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.12.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 made a statement that the reply already filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1 be read as affidavit in evidence, tendered document Ex.R1/1 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.02.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/7 and closed his evidence on 08.01.2019. Opposite party No.4 made a statement that evidence already filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in question on 17.03.2012 and there was problem in the alleged refrigerator which was repaired by the opposite party on 23.10.2013 and an amount of Rs.813/- were charged. Beside this, as per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 08.02.2014 an amount of Rs.900/-, as per job sheet Ex.C4 dated 05.09.2015 an amount of Rs.342/- and as per Ex.C5 dated 16.07.2016 an amount of Rs.1639/- were charged respectively from the complainant for repair of the alleged refrigerator. Moreover, complainant has made more than 30 complaints to the opposite parties as mentioned in para no.5 of the complaint w.e.f. 27.08.2015 to 19.09.2016 for the alleged defect in the refrigerator but the refrigerator in question could not be repaired by the opposite parties. As such, it shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the refrigerator in question and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of refrigerator in question after deducting the 20% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the refrigerator in question uninterruptedly for more than a year.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.19200/-(Rupees nineteen thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.03.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the refrigerator in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
