Haryana

Ambala

CC/377/2018

Neelam Salhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 377 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   14.11.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   17.09.2019.

 

Neelam Salhotra W/o Sh. Madan Lal Salhotra, aged 60 years, resident of House No.113, Gobind Nagar, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana).

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.                                                 Versus

1. Samsung Electronics India (P) Ltd., 2^nd floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Squre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Gurgaon, through its M.D.
2.  M/s Shilpa Agencies Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. Through its Manager/Proprietor.
3. Kohli Telecom, 374-A Adjoining Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Ambala City Through its Manager/Proprietor.

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                                                        

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1 & 3.

OP No.2 ex parte vide order dated 29.04.2019.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To direct the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs.61,000/- to the complainant as cost of the fridge in question.

OR to replace the said fridge with new fridge of same make and model.

2. To direct the opposite party to give to the complainant interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.61,000/- as paid towards purchase of the said fridge, from the date of defect till its realization.
3. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony and suffering.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Samsung Fridge, Model number RS21HSTPN1 for Rs.61,000/- in cash vide invoice No.SA9760 dated 28.03.2012 from M/s Shilpa Agencies i.e. OP No.2 being the Authorized Seller and stockist of M/s Samsung Agencies India i.e. OP No.1. She was given an assurance of a lifetime guarantee on the said fridge by the seller i.e. OP No.2 at the time of the sale of the fridge to the complainant. She lodged a complaint with the Samsung vide complaint reference ID No.4257809970 (ref Mobile Number 9896344555) for the malfunction/defect in the said fridge on 03.04.2018 with OP No.2. A technician/representative from M/s Kohli Telecom OP No.3 visited her premises and on the checking of the fridge duly informed her that due to a “internal gas leak” the said fridge has become “un-repairable”. Technician upon taking his visiting charges vide invoice dated 03.04.2018, did not care to repair/replace or recommend the proper course of action to her. Despite repeated requests no one from the OPs’ side visited her premises to attend the faulty and non-functional fridge. To add insult to injury her husband who  is an ailing senior citizen was abused and misbehaved by the representative of M/s Kohli Telecom OP No.3 on telephone, who said her husband “do whatever he wants and no one cares”. Finally on 06.04.2018 Samsung i.e. OP No.1 vide their e-mail admitted that the Samsung Fridge, Model Number RS21HSTPN1 purchased for a valuable consideration of Rs.61,000/- by her  is “non-serviceable”. On 11.05.2018, she served a legal notice upon the opposite parties by her counsel. OPs’ are guilty of grave deficiency of service misrepresentation and unfair trade practices and have thus caused humiliation, mental agony and suffering to the complainant and her family by neither repairing nor replacing the faulty fridge. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that services have been provided to complainant whenever reported/demanded by complainant. Complainant in regard to complaint regarding the fridge in question, approached to company on 03.04.2018 vide call No.4257860922 i.e., after a period of approximate more than six years from date of purchase. The fridge in question was working fine without any issue till 03.04.2018 and also on that occasion, the complainant reported some problem in her fridge. The engineer of the company visited the premises of complainant and checked the fridge in question and found that there is an internal gas leakage issue in the fridge. During the span of time, the usability and novelty of a product goes down after use of product for a long time of more than six years and for the reason, the alleged product/unit/fridge in question which has been used by complainant for more than 6 years. Company told to complainant that there is no refund policy as per the company policy, but only account of goodwill gesture, the respondent offered a commercial solution for the alleged fridge to complainant to which, complainant refused to accept and there is no deficiency in services of unfair trade practice on part of OPs No.1 & 3. Company provides one year warranty on the fridge in question and five years warranty only for the compressor of the fridge from the date of purchase of fridge (in case of fridge with smart digital invertor compressor, warranty of 10 years would be provided only for smarty digital invertor compressor of fridge) and also warranty means in case of any problem with the fridge, the fridge will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy and the warranty of the fridge is subject to some conditions and the warranty of the fridge becomes void in the following conditions:

          1.       Liquid Logged/water logging.

          2.       Physically Damage.

          3.       Serial no. Missing.

          4.       Tampering.

          5.       Mishandling/Burnt etc.

          Further submitted that the services to complainant have been provided and also depreciated refund has been offered to complainant for the fridge, so no cause of action arises in favour of complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 3. On merits, denying averments of the complaint for want of knowledge prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.  

3.                Complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 tendered affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur C/o Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon as Annexure OPA alongwith documents Annexure OP1 to OP4. On the other hand OP No.2 failed to appear before the forum and was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 29.04.2019.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.1 and the case law referred by the ld. Counsel for the OP No.1.            

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the Samsung fridge in question from the OP No.2 vide invoice No.SA9760 dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure C-1). The complainant has argued that he was given an assurance of a lifetime guarantee on the said fridge by the seller i.e. OP No.2 at the time of sale of the fridge which is also evident from the sticker on the fridge (Annexure C-2). She lodged a complaint with the Samsung vide complaint reference ID No.4257809970 for the malfunction/defect in the said fridge on 03.04.2018 with OP No.2. Technician/representatives of OP No.3 visited the house of complainant and informed that due to “internal gas leak”, the said fridge was become “un-repairable” and took visiting charges vide invoice dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure C-3). Despite repeated requested of complainant no one from the OPs’ side visited the house of complainant to remove the defect of fridge and also misbehaved with the husband of complainant. On 06.04.2018 OP No.1 vide E-mail (annexure C-4) duly acknowledged and admitted that fridge purchased by complainant is “non-serviceable”. Complainant served legal notice (Annexure C-5) through her counsel. On the other hand, OP No.1 and 3 appeared and contested the complainant filed by complainant submitting that complaint is baseless, devoid of any merits and without cause of action but on making complaint by the complainant the services have been provided to complainant. The complaint was made by the complainant after six years from the date of purchase and warranty was only for 5 years. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 & 3 has also relied upon case law titled as Rinku Garg Versus Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. in First Appeal No.584 of 2017, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Sector 37-A, Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh. On the other hand OP No.2 failed to appear and was proceeded against ex parte v.o.d 29.04.2019. During the pendency of the present case, the complainant moved an application to get inspected the Samsung fridge from some local commissioner and said application was allowed by this Forum vide its order dated 16.11.2018. Accordingly, Shri Achin Jain, an expert of Govt. ITI Ambala City tendered his report on 27.12.2018. From the perusal of said report, it is apparent that the compressor of the fridge was not in working condition. This report has not been controverted by the OPs’. Furthermore as per Annexure C-2 the warranty of the compressor is for 10 years for digital invertor compressor. Therefore, the local commissioner has opined that the compressor of fridge in question is not working. E-Mail dated 06.04.2018 Annexure C-4 shows that Samsung company has mentioned that product is non repairable. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 & 3 offered the complainant to accept the refund of the depreciated value of the fridge in question. Furthermore they also mentioned in their E-mail that “We would request you to treat this incident as an exception and not as a yardstick to evaluate the quality of service, we strive to achieve for our valued customer”. Therefore, if we order for replacement of the defected Samsung fridge as same is not repairable mentioned by the company vide their E-mail with the new one of same model, with fresh warranty, it will meet the ends of justice. The case law relied upon by Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 & 3 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. At the same time, we also hold that complainant is also entitled for the compensation/litigation charges on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally in the following manner:-

1. To replace the defected Samsung fridge in question with the new one of the same model with fresh warranty. If the OPs are not in position to replace the said fridge of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.61,000/- to the complainant.  
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation/litigation charges for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid direction jointly and severally, within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 17.09.2019.

 

         

         

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)                                       (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                                            President