| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 178 of 22-07-2019 Decided on : 22-11-2021 Mitul Jindal aged about 32 years, S/o Late Sh. Surinder Kumar R/o Post Office Bazar, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Authorized person, 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43 Gurgaon 122202 Jiwan Electronics, Post Office Bazar through Prop. Bathinda 151 001.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh.Sanjay Goyal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Kuljit Pal Sharma, counsel for OP No. 1 OP No. 2 exparte. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Mitu Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Samsung India Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one refrigerator from opposite party No. 2, with Digital Inverter Techonology RT56H667ES/TL(TP) manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and paid Rs. 68,500/- in cash. The opposite party No. 2 assured that refrigerator is of best quality and gave 10 years guarantee on behalf of company. It is alleged that in the month of March, 2019, the said refrigerator stopped working as it was keeping the temperature low. There was no cooling maintained by the refrigerator and the temperature in the refrigerator was approximately 30 degree. On the advise of the opposite parties refrigerator was taken to the authorized service centre of the opposite parties situated at Bathinda Job Card No. 4281439110 was conveyed by the official of services centre, but no hard copy was provided. The officials of services centre told the complainant that there is a major defect in the refrigerator which cannot be rectified and further told that he shall he refunded 60% of the price after applying depreciation method because complainant has used the refrigerator for four years. The officials of the opposite parties asked the complainant to purchase new refrigerator of the same company and assured that after purchasing of the new refrigerator 60% amount shall he refunded in the shape of refund voucher. On the assurance of the opposite parties, complainant purchased new refrigerator. It is also alleged that old refrigerator is still lying with the services centre of the opposite parties since march, 2019. The service centre neither repaired the refrigerator nor refunded its price. Hence, there is defiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties supplied defective refrigerator to complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties as the refrigerator of complainant is lying with the opposite parties since March, 2019 for the purpose of repair. The complainant has alleged that he suffered mental tension due to which claims compensation and refund etc., On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 68,500/- with interest @12% and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5500/-. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 2. Upon receipt of notice, opposite party No. 1 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No.1 took preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. No cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the present complaint. The refrigerator in question has been purchased on 6-12-2014 vide invoice No.1738 issued by opposite party No.2. The first complaint has been lodged in April 2019, which shows that complainant has used the refrigerator in question for more than 4 years without any kind of problem. On 24-04-2019 when the complaint was lodged, the product in question was out of warranty, as there is warranty of one year for the entire refrigerator and additional 9 years warranty is for compressor only. After expiry of warranty period, opposite party No. 1 is only liable to repair the product in question on chargeable basis only. The visiting service engineer found that refrigerator was having gas leakage problem which cannot be rectified. Thus authorized service centre apprised the complainant that as his product is more than 4 years old, therefore he is entitled for 10% depreciated refund of price of the product. The complainant for the reasons best known to him did not accept the said offer and has now filed the present complaint falsely alleging that 60% depreciated refund was offered to him by the service engineer. As per record of opposite party No. 1, complainant till date has lodged only one complaint after more than 4 years of purchase on 24-04-2019. The service engineer visited the premises of complainant and on checking the product, he advised him that there was gas leakage problem which cannot be rectified properly. Thus service centre recommended for 10% depreciated refund of price as the product in question was more than 4 years old. The service centre asked complainant to produce the original bill of the refrigerator, but complainant instead of producing the genuine bill dated 6-12-2014 of the product in question, has submitted fake bill alleged to be issued in the year 2016 for the refrigerator in question. The opposite party No. 1 on verifying the bill found it to be fake and rejected the refund claim to the complainant. In the present complaint there is no detail mentioned regarding the bill/invoice for the product in question. This shows the malafide intentions of the complainant. That the complainant has not sought permission of this Commission before instituting the present complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of vague, evasive and false allegations. The authorized service centre suggested to complainant that as the refrigerator in question is more than 4 years old, he can avail 10% depreciated refund of price of the product as per policy of opposite party No. 1, where the product cannot be repaired properly, subject to submitting of original bill, but complainant instead of submitting genuine bill issued in the year 2014, has submitted fake bill/invoice issued in the year 2016 to claim higher depreciated refund. Now complainant has filed the present complaint alleging totally false facts and concealed the details of the correct invoice of the product in question. There is no consumer dispute between the parties nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. That the present complaint is gross misuse of process of law. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 or its authorized service centre has never denied after sales services with regard to the refrigerator in question. The opposite party No. 1 is only liable to refund the depreciated price of the product in question as the product is more than 4 years old. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to extract money by dragging in unwanted litigation. That the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Samsung Electronics India Private Limited is a renowned company in electronic products and home appliances and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years. The technology used by the company in manufacturing the world class electronic products is highly sophisticated. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 denied that there is 10 years guarantee on the refrigerator. Rather there is only warranty for one year for the refrigerator and additional 9 year warranty is only for the compressor subject to warranty terms and conditions as mentioned in warranty card supplied with the product. It is also denied that refrigerator stopped working in the month of March 2019. The complainant lodged complaint in the month of April 2019. It is admitted that refrigerator was shifted to authorized service centre but denied that official of service centre told that there is a major defect in the refrigerator which cannot be rectified or told complainant that he shall be refunded 60% of the price after using the depreciation method. Rather there was problem of gas leakage in the refrigerator which cannot be completely rectified. Thus to save the complainant from botheration of getting the refrigerator repaired again and again and as the product was more than 4 years old the opposite party No. 1 offered 10% refund of price after using depreciation method as per warranty terms and condition, but complainant refused to accept the 10% refund offer. The opposite party No. 1 admitted that refrigerator is lying with service centre since April 2019 as complainant refused to take back his refrigerator. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of retail sale (Ex. C-1), photocopy of warranty (Ex. C-2), affidavit dated 22-7-2019 of complainant (Ex. C-3) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 15-9-2019 of Anup Kumar Mathur (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of warranty card (Ex. OP-1/2) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and gone through the record. In the case in hand, grudge of the complainant is that opposite parties sold him defective refrigerator which has manufacturing defect which admittedly cannot be properly rectified. The complainant claims that he is entitled to 60% of the amount as the service engineer of the opposite party asked him to purchase new refrigerator and 60% of the price shall be refunded to complainant after applying depreciation method but in the complaint he has prayed for refund of total price i.e. 68,600/-. It is admitted that the said refrigerator is lying with the service centre of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 in para No. 2 of its reply has admitted that service engineer of the opposite parties, on checking the product, advised the complainant that there was gas leakage problem which cannot be rectified properly. Therefore, in this way, the opposite party No. 1 has admitted that defect occurred in the refrigerator cannot be rectified. The opposite party No. 1 has also admitted in para No. 1 on merits that there is warranty of one year for the refrigerator and additional 9 years warranty for the compressor. The opposite party No. 1 also admitted in para No. 5 of preliminary objections that it is only liable to refund the depreciated price of the product in question as the product is more than 4 years old. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 1 in supplying the defective product to complainant and thereafter when admittedly product was not repairable, in not compensating him, the loss suffered by him. Now the quantum of loss to which the complainant is entitled to. The complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 8-12-2014 for a consideration of Rs. 68,500/- as is evident from Invoice (Ex. C-1). Admittedly there is 10 years warranty on compressor and there is gas leakage problem in the refrigerator which cannot be rectified. The opposite party No. 1 admitted its liability to refund the depreciated price but has not brought on file any alleged policy regarding depreciation method for refund of price of the product. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would meet the ends of justice if complainant is allowed 50% refund of the price considering ratio of depreciation that refrigerator is 4 years old and it has been used by complainant for 4 years. Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are further directed to refund Rs. 34,250/- (50% of price of refrigerator i.e. Rs. 68,500/-) to complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 22-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
