IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SMT. GOWRAMMANNI

1. This complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 The Complaint Prays the following relief against the opposite parties:-

1. Direct the opposite party is replace the defective Samsung Refrigerator,
2. Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for having suffered as a result of the faulty and thereby, The absolute ignorance of the opposite party in resolving the issue till date and thereby causing further inconvenience mental agony harassment  and the complainant together with interest at the Rate of 18% on from the date of the complaint till date of payment.
3. To grant the cost of the proceedings of Rs.10,000/- To grant such other relief in the circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of the complaint of the complainant is as under;

1. Complainant purchased the Samsung Refrigerator from the Hassan, Big Bazaar. The said refrigerator has began to malfunction wherein cooling function has failed and the items kept within have perished altogether deeply bothered by the malfunctioning. The complainant has properly informed about the same to 2^nd of the Opposite party being the reason authorized service centre of 1^st Opposite party. As per the warranty card provided by opposite party to the complainant the said refrigerator has 1 Year warranty on the product and 10 Years Warranty on the compressor.
2. The complainant approached 2^nd Opposite party on 21/02/2019 through the service personnel of 2^nd OP has visited the complainant place claiming to address the issue No solutions have inspired and the problems have consistently re-forced on a regular basis and have remained unresolved even often a year and half. The complainant further submit that the customer of resolving the issue by 2^nd Opposite party have continued for a prolonged period everyday on 21/02/2021 3^rd Opposite party have come to the complainant place to address the issue in  the refrigerator and claimed to have resolved the issue prevailing in the said refrigerator and received on invoice cash receipt for Rs.23,500/- though the said amount was substantial complainant has painstakingly arranged to payment of the said invoice amount on the very said date and settled the same properly of with a hope that finally the refrigerator would run as it should.  Complainant further submit that opposite party while taking undue advantage of lack of technical knowledge on the part of the wife of the complainant. He has unauthorized removed and taken back the replaced parts for the he has bill for 23,500/-.  Upon return the complainant was shocked to have seen that the parts which were supposed to have been insided during the said repair had unauthorizedly been removed by 3^rd OP while 2^nd OP have not even bothered to refund the aforesaid 23,500/- collected earlier.  
3. Upon observing the prolonged in action of the opposite parties that the complainant has got issued legal notice to the opposite parties calling upon them to resolve the same by replacing the faulty refrigerator within 10 days. The said notice is duly served on the opposite parties, the 1^st Opposite parties has replied to the same and they had promised to rectify the refrigerator. Being highly agreed by the absolute ignorance of the opposite party for the deficiency of service, he prays allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the defective Samsung refrigerator. Hence he filed the complaint before the commission.

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to all the opposite parties.  In response to the notice, 1^st opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed their version. OP 2 and 3 remained absent. Hence placed Exparte.    

4. Brief Facts of the Version filed by the 1^st opposite parties:-

1. Complaint is baseless devolved of merits and without any cause of action. Hence the complaint is liable to be rejected with exemplary cost. Further they submits that the above complaint is filed with mischievous intentions. Further contended in their version there is no merits or jurisdiction in filing this frivolous complaint, the complainant is abusing the process of law misusing the machinery provided for redressal of genuine consumer grievance. Further they alleged that the allegations made in the complaint are false and they contended that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be rejected without granting any relief since the complaint is filed behind Samsung Warranty period. Admittedly the unit is purchased on 30/06/2015 and 1 Year given warranty expired on 29/06/2016 but the complaint filed on 17/10/2023 after expiry of warranty and with a gap of more than 7 years from warranty expiry date.
2. Further they contended in their version the service call dated 04/03/2021 is cancelled on behest of the complainant now alleges he has paid Rs.23,500/- that without producing the valid acknowledgement receipt towards the said alleged payment. That apart as per service job sheet dated 03/11/2019 only Rs.1500 + is collected for replacement of burnt PCB and fuse. Likewise on 08/10/2020 only Rs.1515/- is collected in replacing the burned part. As per the service job sheets, the complainant payment never exceeds Rs.2,000/- at any point of time. Per contra now it is alleged no efforts is made by the service engineer which is alleged to have been visited on 21/02/2021 and collected Rs.23,500/-. In fact no supporting document is placed before this commission to believe the service engineer visited on 21/02/2021 and thereby he has collected Rs.23,5000/-
3. The opposite party further submitted that complainant is adamant and not ready for payment. The service call dated 04/03/2021 is cancelled since it is out warranty service call payment is mandatory. But the complainant not ready for payment in the service job sheet. It is alleged he has paid a sum of Rs.23,500/- on 21/02/2021 itself and settled the claim properly with fond O that the refrigerator would run smoothly. That the issue is solved and collected certain amount. The allegation of the complainant made in Para. 10 of the complaint and more particularly after setting the alleged bill amount of Rs.23,500/- is not correct. First Opposite party submitted that the answering OP further  submits PCB is burnt due to excess power supply from source. Since the burning issue does not fall within the ambit of technical fault, part cost is collected from the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant made payment after replacing burnt part. In fact this payment is made voluntarily since he is aware that PCB is burnt due to excess power supply and also aware that Refrigerator is out of Warranty.
4. It is further submitted filing present complaint is unnecessary, unwarranted and does not require the intervention of this commission since not technical issue reported within the warranty period. The part burning issue does not fall within the ambit of warranty free service. That apart the complainant declined to make payment to complete his out-warranty service work.
5. The answering OP further submits the present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and speculative in nature filed with an oblique notice to make unlawful gain at the cost of answering OP knowing very well about the company status and brand image established by them.
6. All other allegations which are not admitted herein expressly or by necessary implication and which are contrary and inconsistent with this written version are hereby denied as false. Wherefore, under the facts and circumstances stated above coupled with documentary evidence it is prayed that this Hon’ble Commission be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the ends of justice.

5. In this case complainant filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit evidence as CW-1 with 10 documents marked as exhibits C-1 to C-10. And The 1^st opposite party has filed their examination-in-chief by way of affidavit evidence taken as RW-1 with 02 documents marked as exhibits R-1 to R-2. Both parties filed their written arguments, Heard the oral arguments of both the parties and posted for orders.
6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under;
   1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought ?
   2. What order ?

7. Our findings on the above points are as under;
   1. Point No.1 :- Negative
   2. Point No.2:-  As per the final order for 
   13031.  

R E A S O N S

1. Point No.1:-   Complainant alleged against the opposite parties that within the initial month past purchased the said Samsung refrigerator has begun to malfunction wherein cooling function has failed and the items kept within have perished and the refrigerator has also begun to noise. But the opposite parties were not provide the good service instead of that OP 3 has raised the invoice cash of Rs.23,500/- He never resolved the defects of the said fridge. Being highly agreed by the absolute ignorance of the opposite parties and also they never tried to rectify the defect and failed to respond the problems till date. There is no other suitable alternative remedy to replace the defective refrigerator. In support of their contention complainant produced cash receipt invoice dated 21/02/2018 and 08/04/2019 customer service report and acknowledgements of service request, office copy of the legal notice which is sent to Opposite parties, Postal acknowledgements and reply notice from the 1^st OP.
2. In this case 1^st Opposite party is the manufacturer of the Samsung refrigerator. 2^nd OP is the Authorized sales and service showroom of the 1^st OP and 3^rd OP is the service engineer working under 2^nd OP. Complainant stated in their complaint he was purchased the said product in Hassan, Big Bazaar. The main dispute arise in this case the said Samsung Refrigerator got in from the begun it was not functioning properly OP 2 is not provide good service and also OP 3 has not resolved the problem which was occurred in the defective refrigerator.
3. The question for determination of which falls our consideration is whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP 2 and OP 3? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the replacement of Samsung refrigerator. In this case both parties were sworn into their affidavit evidence and retreated all facts which were pleaded in their complaint and version. We gone through the material facts of the case and perused the documents which were available on records we carefully observed that the Samsung refrigerator is purchased on 30/06/2015 and 1 year given warranty expired on 29/06/2016 and the complainant has not produced the warranty card to determine warranty terms and conditions to establish his case. Whether he is entitled to replacement and compensation but he produced before the commission only Job Sheets those customer service report clearly shows that the unit is out of warranty the job sheets produced by the complainant are for the year 2019, 2020 and 2021 No Job sheets is produced to establish that the complainant has availed service within the warranty period and he has not produced the invoice copy to know about the date of purchase and price of the product. In this case all the service request is made after warranty period and he was not availed single service during warranty and more particularly for technical fault. The exhibit C-1 to C-7 those documents produced by the complainant it is reflects that all the service is availed for Non Technical fault and more particularly for burning issues.
4. In this case complainant counsel vehemently argued that on 21/02/2021 3^rd Opposite party have come to the complainant place to address the issue in the refrigerator and claim to have resolved the issue thrivailing in said refrigerator and raised on invoice cash receipt for 23,500/- Though the said amount was submissional and settle the same properly but the Opposite party while taking undue advantage of lack of technical knowledge on the part of the wife of the complainant he has unauthorized removed and taken back the replacement parts for which he has billed. In support of their argument there is no documentary evidence placed before the commission oral argument does not much more worth and effect to the facts of the case the burden of proof lies on the complainant. He has failed to prove the above contention hence the argument of the complainant does not hold by the commission.
5. In this case OP counsel specifically argued that as per service job sheet PCB replaced due to its burning. This burning happened due to excess power supplied from source or due to lightning. As per warranty card burning issue is out of for the of free replacement. Even though the unit is within warranty same principal applicable for out warranty product. Further they argued that the refrigerator is aged more than 8 years as on the complainant filing day. As per warranty card the refrigerator cover  1 Year warranty. As per complainant document PCB is replaced due to burning issue in fact the complainant never availed any service for technical issue and no parts were replaced till date except burned PCB. In support of their argument they cited National Commission report II (2013) CPJ 688 (NC) National Consumer Disputes redressal commission, New Delhi.
6. Further OP counsel specifically took a contention that the allegation made by the complainant the service for dated 04/10/2021 is cancelled on behest of the complainant as per service job sheet dated 03/11/2019 only Rs.1,500/- is collected for replacement of burnt PCB and fuse and 08/10/2020 only Rs.1,515/- is collected replacement of burnt part further OP specifically took a contention that on 21/02/2021 is a Sunday holiday Hence no working day complainant never availed service from the 3^rd Opposite party the invoice bill amount of Rs.23,500/- paid to 3^rd OP the allegations made by the complainant is utterly false and complainant availed service on 04/03/2021 and however legal notice is issued on 25/05/2023   after more than 2 years from last service request. In support of their argument opposite party produced High Court Calendar of 2021 copy of the warranty card and screenshot of SO No.4320739382
7. In this case we gone through the warranty card “this warranty card covers only the defects in products arising our of manufacturing or faulty workmanship”, and “the warrant shall be null and void in any of the following cases, and in such cases Samsung may at its sole discretion repair the equipment on a chargeable basis. Defects due to causes beyond control like lightning, abnormal voltage, spikes, external sources (ex: cable/set top box connections), fire, water logging, natural calamities, commotion, riots, theft, anti-0social action, acts of God or while in transit”. 
8. In this case complainant purchased the said refrigerator on 30/06/2015 warranty period is one year the gap between warranty expiry date and the complainant filing date is more than 7 years. The unit is out of warranty. Complainant has not produced expert opinion to prove his case as per warranty card defects due to cause behind control like lightning, abnormal voltage, act of god or while in transit to service centre or purchasers residence, warranty is not applicable. Complainant prayed before this commission replacement and compensation. If any product is used more that 2 years without any issue under such circumstances it cannot be considered that the unit suffers from defect and further held the customer is not eligible for replacement because first service call is registered after expiry of warranty and after more than 4 years from the purchase date. Replacement or Refund bill arise as and when the unit suffers from multiple service within warranty. In this case the unit is out of warranty aged more than 8 years from purchase date and all the service request is made for replacement of burned PCB in fact the payment is made voluntarily and without any protest making payment itself that the unit is out of warranty and in the pleading there is no specific allegations that the unit suffers from inherent manufacturing defect still the complainant is seeking full refund compensation. Complainant does not provide sufficient material documents to prove his case against the Opposite parties. In this case we have already stated that complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Thereby he is not entitled to get replacement for Samsung refrigerator as prayed for accordingly the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case we answer Point No.1 in Negative.
9. Point No.2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order;

O R D E R

1. The complaint of the complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is Dismissed.
2. No order on the cost.
3. Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties at free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced in      the Open Commission on this 21^st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024)

 (GOWRAMMANNI)                   (Dr. RENUKAMBA.C)                                                     

                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT(I/C)    

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant

       CW-1- Mr. H.M.Sharath, S/o H.D.Mallappa, Aged 57 Years, 

                   Uruguthi  Village, Kodlipete Post, Somwarpet Taluk,

                   Kodagu District.

Documents marked on behalf of the complainant

1. Ex.P1-   Cash Receipt Invoice 6079 dated 21.12.2018 
2. Ex.P2-   Cash Receipt Invoice 6897 dated 08.04.2019 
3. Ex.P3-   Customer service record card dated 07.03.2021
4. Ex.P4-   Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 08.03.2021 
5.   Ex.P5-   Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 08.03.2021 
6.   Ex.P6-   Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 08.03.2021 
7.   Ex.P7-   Acknowledgement of Service Request dated 08.03.2021 
8.   Ex.P8-   Office Copy of the legal Notice Dated 21.06.2023
9.   Ex.P9-    AD Card ( 2 Numbers) 
10. Ex.P10-  Reply Notice from 1^st Opposite party dated 25.06.2023

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:-

RW-1:-   Sandeep Sahijvani, S/o Vishnu.L.Sahijvani, Aged 56 Years, Director,

      Customer Satisfaction in Samsung India Electronics (P) Limited having

      Registered office at New-Delhi.

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party :-

1. Ex.R1-   Copy of Product warranty card
2. Ex.R2-   Screenshot of SO No.4320739382

                                                                   (GOWRAMMANNI)

Dated: 21.11.2024                                         MEMBER