BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                                                                        (Camp sitting at Karaikal)

                                        C.C.No.67/2015

Dated this the  24^th  day of June 2016.

(Date of Institution: 18.12.2015)

S.M. Nachiyar, wife of A.M. Ilmuddeen Maricar

No.13, Kalmattu Street,

Karaikal.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. Samsung India rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    Head Office SCO-35, Huda Main Market, Gurgaon,

    Sector 31, Near Reliance Super Market,

    Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana.

2. Samsung India rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    Corporate Office: 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower C,                 

    Vipul Tech Square, Old Golf Road, Sector 43

    Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana

3. M/s Abie Electronics, rep. by its Authorised Signatory

    Retail Dealer of Samsung

    No.172, Kamaraj Salai, Karaikal – 609 602.

                             .                                     ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  S.M. Habeeb Mohamed, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru. A. ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite Parties either to replace the defective Samsung Refrigerator bearing Model No. RL 4033UBASL/TL and Serial Number 54734DBD600017K with a new one of the same branch and model in perfect working condition or to pay the price of the said refrigerator, namely, Rs.62,500/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of purchase (15.01.2014) to the date of payment;  to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages or compensation; and for costs.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a new Samsung Refrigerator having  Model RL 4033UBASL/TL and serial number 54734DBD 600017K from Opposite Party
No. 3 at Karaikal on 15-01-2014 vide cash bill No. C584 for Rs. 62,500/-.   It was a new model at that time and there was not any competent Technician with opposite party No.3 to give a demo about the operation and use of the machine. The complainant switched on the refrigerator and ran it for one hour only as she had to leave for Singapore.   On her return to India the refrigerator was put to use form 19-02-2014 for the first time. The complainant's family was out of town from March 2014 to June 2014 and during this period the refrigerator was not in use.  It was put to regular domestic use from June 2014 and found that the machine was not maintaining the right and proper temperature to preserve the foodstuffs and vegetables kept inside and they are getting spoiled.  In the month June 2014,  a formal complainant was given to Opposite Party No.3 regarding the aforesaid malfunctioning of the refrigerator.  The Technicians at Samsung authorised local service centre manually adjusted controls to arrest the sweating and moisture. The problems persisted and the Technicians could not do anything about it as they did not possess the required skill and know-how to rectify the malfunctioning which rendered the refrigerator totally useless to cater to the household needs. The complainant properly registered her complainant about the serious and major defects in the refrigerator to all the Opposite Parties within the period of warranty. But, no step was taken by them either to restore the defective product to working condition or to replace the same with a new one till the month of December 2014.

The complainant further stated that the reply mail dated 04-12-214 from one
Mr. Abhishek Dhingra informed the complainant that they had arranged for an Engineer to visit at her location to attend to the door colour and moisture problem and that the complainant would receive a call by the service delivery team to schedule the appointment. The mail also gave the contact number of one Sri Padma Customer Care. The damaged and discoloured door of the refrigerator was replaced with a recycled door without the brand name and model. The husband of the complainant sent email to Sansung Support Team, Customer Care, "As per our finding with the service centre, the Engineer already repaired the product. Kindly observe the performance of the product and further if you face and issue contact us".  The husband of the complainant in his mail to the CEO marking copies to Abhishek Dhingra and Priti informed that in spite of his repeated complaints to the opposite parties for six months the problems complained of still persisted and they had not been rectified to make the refrigerator operational and usable. The husband of the complainant again demanded for total replacement in his mail dated 21-03-2015.   In her mail dated 23-03-2015 Priti wrote to the husband of the complainant that "We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused to you on your dealing with Samsung services. This is in reference to your email regarding the complainant of your Samsung Refrigerator bearing Model Number RL4033UBASL/TL and serial Number 54734DBD600017K. We would like to inform you that we try to contact you on available numbers 9445407786, 9840078688, 4368222847 multiple times but were unable to establish a communication. We would like to request you to confirm us with your convenient time so that we may be able to get in touch with you for further discussion on the case. Alternatively, you may contact us back on The husband f the complainant in his mail dated.26-03-2016 wrote as  "I'm very much back on town. You can call any time on 9445407786 or 9840078688 during daytime. House phone BSNL is out of order".  The complainant has not received any response from the support center or any of the aforesaid members of the support team of the opposite parties 1
and 2.  The complainant stated that the opposite parities 1 and 2 have sold a defective refrigerator to the complainant through Opposite Party No.3.  The very purpose for which it was purchased is frustrated because of the negligence, carelessness and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. They are guilty of unfair trade practice in selling the product with manufacturing defect and not replacing the same with a new one in working condition even after their failure for the past one year to properly repair and make it hundred percent operational and functional.  The complainant caused an advocate notice dated 22-04-2015 to be sent to the opposite parties calling upon them to replace the aforesaid defective refrigerator.  Though all the Opposite Parties had duly acknowledged the receipt of the advocate notice they had not either complied with the demands contained therein or given their reply to the notice.   Hence this complaint.

4. The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

5. On the side of the complainant, she has chosen to examine herself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C20.

6.  Points for determination are:

1. Whether the Complainant is the  Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

7.  Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased one  Samsung Refrigerator of Model RL 4033UBASL/TL and serial number 54734DBD 600017K from Opposite Party
No. 3 at Karaikal manufactured by first and second opposite parties on 15-01-2014 vide Ex.C1 cash bill No. C584 for Rs. 62,500/- with warranty of one year as per Ex.C2.    Hence, the complainant is the consumer.

8.       Point No.2:

          The complainant was examined as CW1 and marked Exs.C1 to C20.  The Opposite Parties were duly served, but called absent and set ex parte.  The complainant submits that she has purchased a refrigerator from third opposite party for Rs.62,500/- with warranty of one year.    The complainant further alleged that after purchase  of the same on 15.01.2014 she ran it for one hour and then she went to Singapore and on return, the refrigerator was put to use from 19.02.2014 for the first time.   From February 2014, the complainant's family was out of station and on their return from June 2014, she was regularly using the refrigerator and observed that the fridge was not maintaining the right and properly temperature to preserve the foodstuffs and vegetables kept inside and there was excess sweating and moisture inside the unit  On 4.12.2014 the complainant's husband sent an email to Samsung Customer Support Centre vide Ex.C3 for which, they have replied that they would arrange an Engineer to visit the house of complainant and do the needful.   Since nobody turned up, the complainant sent another email vide Ex.C4 dated 15.12.2014 alleging the problems she had faced with the refrigerator and also sent photos of the foodstuffs rotten and bubbles in the refrigerator vide Exs.C5 and C6.  Since the defects in the refrigerator was not rectified by the opposite parties, the complainant sent another email dated 13.01.2015 vide Ex.C7 asking for replacement of new refrigerator.  Thereafter, the complainant went abroad.  On 06.03.2015 the complainant sent another email Ex.C9 to the opposite parties 1
and 2 alleging that the problems still persists and informed that she would go to Consumer Court.  The email conversation were continued till 21.03.2015 as per Exs.C10 to C16.  between the complainant and the opposite parties, however, no fruitful result arrived and the defects in the refrigerator was not rectified by the opposite parties.  Ultimately, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 22.04.2015 to the opposite parties vide Ex.C17 calling upon them either to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one in perfect working condition or to pay the price of the refrigerator.  The opposite parties received the same vide Exs.C18 to C20, however, failed even to reply for the Ex.C17. 

9.  From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Ex.C1 that the complaint alleged refrigerator was purchased by the complainant from the third Opposite Party on 15.01.2014 for Rs.62,500/- with warranty period of one year.   Ex.C2 shows that the warranty period for the refrigerator  is one year and for compressor, it is  60 months from the date of purchase.  Hence, the refrigerator  is under warranty period.   Further, on perusal of Exs.C3 to C16, the emails sent by the complainant and the reply received from the opposite parties, it is found that the said refrigerator was not working properly and has lot of defects.  All the efforts taken by the complainant ended in vein, the purpose for which the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was not served.  But, it gave mental agony, loss and sufferings.  It is alleged by the complainant that when he reported the defects for many times and it could not be rectified by the third opposite party  from whom the complainant purchased the refrigerator, they have neither replaced the unit and taken the issue with the manufacturer.     To refute the contentions of the complainant and establish that the refrigerator is in good working condition, the Opposite Parties did not turn up before this Forum to let in evidence even though they have received summons from this Forum.  The above act of the Opposite Parties clearly establish the complainant's case and hence, this Forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the negligent act and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation for their negligent act, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

10.     Point No.3:

          In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to 

1. Return the cost of the refrigerator i.e. Rs. 62,500/- to the complainant and take back the same;
2. Pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

              The above said order should be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 24^th day of June 2016.

                                                                                                                                (A. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1          27.05.2016           Ilmudeen Maricar      

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:      Nil

                                                                                                                                   (A.ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

                                           MEMBER