Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/216/2022

Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Nirban

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI

                                                          Complaint No. : 216 of 2022

    Date of Institution: 10.10.2022

                     Date of Order:      29.08.2023

 

Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Chandu Lal, R/o House No. 58, Sector-23, Bhiwani, Haryana-(127021), Ph.: 9812275521

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,  Registered Office at: 6th Floor, DLF Center,   Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 Through its authorized person/representative

 

2. RV Solutions Private Limited,  Samsung Authorized Service Center, Having its office at  House No. 337, Old Housing Board, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021 Through its authorized person/representative

…Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

BEFORE:  SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SH. D.M. YADAV, MEMBER

 

Present:  Shri Sahil Nirban, Advocate for Complainant

               Shri Rajender Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1

               Opposite Party No. 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 03.02.2023

 

              SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 11.07.2017, he had purchased a Samsung Double Door Refrigerator bearing Model No. RT42M553ESL/TL, Serial No. 0FT4DAJ401156   for an amount of Rs. 54,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Only) from the authorized retailer of SAMSUNG Company in Bhiwani i.e. Vijay Electronics situated at Radhika Complex, Hansi Road, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021 having 10 year warranty of the compressor. It is further submitted that in the month of February 2022, the said refrigerator was started malfunctioning and was not cooling properly and had lodge a complaint  on 09.02.2022 in connection with the cooling issued related to the said refrigerator. Thereafter, the technician/Engineer of the respondent no. 2 has visited the premises of complainant and thoroughly inspected the said refrigerator and engineer came into conclusion that there was blockage in cooling coils of the refrigerator which will be clean and one Compressor Valve Dryer will replace. Further, the technician of the respondent no. 2 told to Complainant to bring the refrigerator to the address of the service center as it was only thoroughly cleaned with the machines and parts also be replaced in the premises of the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the cooling coils of the said refrigerator was cleaned and Compressor Valve Dryer set was replaced by the respondent no. 2 and for cleaning and replacing the Compressor Valve Dryer set, the respondent no. 2 have charged a sum of Rs. 2420/- from Complainant in which the Rs. 1239/- towards the services and Rs. 1181/- towards the spares and respondent no. 1 issued a bill dated 19.04.2022 bearing invoice no. RVBHIWANI2200057. Apart from this, the complainant had also paid the charges of Rs. 500/- towards the transportation of said refrigerator.  It is further submitted by the complainant that he has assured by the officials of the service center that the said refrigerator will work properly. However, even after changing the compressor by the authorized service center, the said refrigerator of Complainant was not cooling properly as assured by the service engineer. The Complainant had again lodged a complaint and but no resolution was done by the respondent no. 2. And after few days, the Complainant was informed by the officials of the respondent no. 2 that there is an internal leakage issue in the said refrigerator which can neither be repaired nor replaced and as such the said refrigerator cannot be used further by the complainant. Further, the engineer told to the Complainant that the company will refund the 20% cost of the said refrigerator after deducting 80% depreciation charges from the price amount of the said refrigerator. It was further submitted by the complainant that the respondent no. 2 failed to resolve the cooling issue problem even after charging a sum of Rs. 2420/- which was paid by the Complainant and it is not repairable even after 2.5 months and the respondent no. 1 will refund 20% cost of the said refrigerator after deducting 80% depreciation charges from the price amount of the said refrigerator.  It is further submitted that the complainant has also served the legal notice through his counsel Sh. Deepanshu Tuteja Advocate on 20.06.2022 calling upon the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs. 56,920/- along with interest within 15 days  and the same has been served upon both the respondent. However, the respondent no. 1 has replied the same on 02.08.2022 and has offered the settlement amount i.e. 20% cost of the refrigerator. And no reply has been given by the respondent no. 2. The act of Opposite Parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 56,920/- (Rs. 54,000/- towards the cost of refrigerator+ Rs. 500/- towards the Freight Charges+ Rs. 2420/- towards the  Cost of  Services and repair) along with the interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of purchase of the refrigerator till its realization and Rs. 21,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment, frustration and sufferings and  Rs. 11,000/- towards the litigation expenses  to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties.  The Counsel for OP no. 1 has appeared on 12.11.2022 and Notice issued to OP No. 2 through process server received back served. Hence, OP no. 2 is proceeded ex-parte on 03.02.2023
3. The OP No. 1 in his written statement/reply has pleaded that services have been provided to complainant whenever reported by the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant had approach to manufacturing company on 08.02.2022 and reported no cooling problem in his refrigerator. The engineer of the manufacturing company checked and said refrigerator and found that Compressor Valve unit is required to be replaced along with Dryer Gas Charging and the engineer replaced the same and said refrigerator working fine. It is further pleaded that the engineer of the manufacturing company again checked the unit and found that there is an internal leakage in the unit and as per the warranty/services conditions, the refrigerator is non repairable due to unavoidable circumstances .It has further pleaded that the complainant had used the said refrigerator in question is approximate four and half year and a commercial solution was applicable to the case of the complainant but the complainant refused for same.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their party  and a prayer for dismissal has been made by the OPs
4. Ld. Counsel of the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A, documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed his evidence on dated 24.03.2023. On the Other hand opposite Party No. 1 has tendered affidavit  Ex. RW1/A and document Annexure R1  and closed the evidence on 24.03.2023
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant along with complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the documents on record.
6. The stand of the complainant is that the OPs are bound to repair the repair the said refrigerator and due to not repairable in condition, the refrigerator in question became useless and as such they are liable to refund its price along with compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.
7. Per contra, the stand of the OPs is that since the refrigerator in question is non repairable due to unavoidable circumstances and the complainant had used the said refrigerator in question is approximate four and half year and a commercial solution was applicable to the case of the complainant but the complainant refused to accept the same and as such the complaint is liable to be rejected.
8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the said refrigerator manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 1  on 11.07.2017 for consideration of Rs. 54,000/- which is also proved from the Ex. C-2 i.e. Invoice. Further, it is not disputed by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the said refrigerator in question is not repairable due to internal leakage issue. As per document Ex. C-3 i.e. Customer Service record Card, the repair report by engineer in the Customer Service Record Card it was clear mentioned that “we replaced the engineer checked and found internal leakage issue which is not repairable. According to Samsung policy, after process company can pay amount as per policy”.  Further, as per the Ex. C-4 the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 2420/- to Opposite Party No. 2 for Compressor Valve and dryer gas charging.  From the documents placed on record, it is proved that complainant had paid the amount for the Compressor Valve and dryer gas charging to the Opposite Party No. 2 for resolving the cooling. Despite of paying the repair charges, the said refrigerator was not cooling and working. Further, as per the complainant, the Opposite Parties has failed to provide the services and repair the said refrigerator in question. It is also on record that Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear despite of service and were preceded against ex-parte. As such it is presumed that Opposite Party No. 2 has nothing to say in the matter.  Further, as per the Ex. C-7 i.e. reply of legal notice given by the OP No.1  it was admitted by the OP No.1 that due to Internal Leakage issued unit is not repairable and ready to provide the amicable solution which is not accepted by the complainant.
9. Further, it is the obligation of the manufacturing company to provide services relating to repairs which are deemed to include the supply of spare parts, consumable parts and leakage issues to render the product back into proper working condition. In this modern era, it has become a common practice for the manufacturing companies to lure the gullible consumers through advertisements to purchase their products and thereafter fleece them of their hard earned money by denying their liability to provide after sale services, spare parts and consumable parts to its consumers essential for the working of the product during the average length of life. This is a perfect case which affects the consumer community at large irrespective of the product used by them if the manufacturers of the products after sale deny their liability to provide the repairable solutions and spare parts they force the consumers to abandon the products which are otherwise in proper working condition. This amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturers to escalate their sales and profit figures by thrusting the consumers to abandon the product and purchase a new one in its place. Thus, the entire allegation leveled by the complainant against the opposite Parties stands proved.
10. In  view of this matter, we are of the considered view that the deduction of 80% on account of the depreciation of the refrigerator in question is on the higher side and unjustified because due to failure on the part of the OPs to repair the refrigerator in question just after 4½ years of its purchase has compelled him to abandon the refrigerator in question  as the same is not repairable due to internal leakage issue otherwise in proper working condition and thus has cut short the average length of life of the refrigerator.  Thus from the evidences as well as reply, it is clear that the act and conduct of the OPs are arbitrarily, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the OPs are found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice.  We are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to apply the depreciation of 40% instead of 80% along with the sum of Rs. 2940/- charged from complainant for repair to be refund. As the opposite parties are manufacturer and service provider of the said refrigerator. Thus they are jointly or severally held liable for not removing the fault in the said refrigerator in question of complainant and to pay the damages.
11.  For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed against OPs and who are jointly or severally held liable for not removing the fault in the said refrigerator in question of complainant and causing mental agony, physical & financial loss with a direction as follows:-

1. To pay 60 % of Rs.54,000 /- i.e. i.e. Rs. 32,400/- the invoice value of the refrigerator in question
2. To pay a sum of Rs. 2420/- towards the cost of services and repair paid by the complainant
3. To pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and to pay a Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.

12. This order is compiled by the opposite parties, within 30 days from the date of decision, failing which the awarded amounts shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filling of complaint till actual payment.  Also, the complainant shall return the refrigerator in question to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.
13. 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 Commission:

Dated:-29.08.2023

 

 

(D.M.Yadav)                            (Saroj Bala Bohra)                 

   Member.                               Presiding Member,

District Consumer Disputes              District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Bhiwani              Redressal Commission, Bhiwani

 

 

P