Delhi

East Delhi

CC/211/2020

SANTOSH KR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110092

 

 

C.C. No. 211/2020

 

 

	Santosh Kumar, A-570A, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110096.	….Complainant
Versus
1.         2.	Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Through the Managing Director), 6th Floor, DLC Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.   Reliance Retail Limited (Through the Branch Manager), Shop No. 328 A, 3rd Floor, Great India Place Mall, Sector-38 A, Noida 201301.	……OP1         ……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 26.10.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 03.07.2023

Judgment Passed on: 03.07.2023

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present case was filed against OP1 and OP2 by the complainant for delivering him a defective refrigerator and having been deficient in providing sufficient service to him. The complainant seeks a refund of the product along with compensation for harassment and mental suffering and litigation cost. OP1 is the manufacturer and OP2 is the seller of the product of OP1.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a refrigerator of OP1 make from OP2 (seller) against payment of Rs.25,000/- on 05.06.2019.  The said refrigerator was delivered to him on 09.06.2019 and was having multi scratches, which, on the complaint made was exchanged by OP2. However, the changed product was also not delivered in good condition and after some time it was found that its cooling was not effective. The same was informed to the OP2 who asked him to contact the OP1. The complainant has emailed the complaint to OP1 which was not responded and upon multiple complaints to OP2 and OP1, the complainant lastly lodged a complaint bearing number 4301848403 on 20.04.2020. One service engineer of OP1, named Mr Rinku, visited the complainant’s place on 09.05.2020 and it was informed to the complainant that there is no gas in the compressor because of which cooling is affected. The complainant submits that delivering brand new refrigerators by OP1 and OP2 without gas, in itself is a deficiency in service and is an indication that he has been given a second-hand product with manufacturing defects in it. The OP1 is liable under sections 2(34) and 2(35) of the CPA, 2019, under the product liability clause for providing him with a defective refrigerator and deficient services. The complainant submits that OPs are involved in unfair trade practices and have misled the complainant to believe that he has booked/ purchased a brand-new first-hand refrigerator, against his payment of Rs. 25,000/-, and that it will be delivered in a sealed box, whereas, a second-hand, used unit without gas in a torn damaged box with strings was given to him.  The complainant demanded his full refund through his notice dated 17.07.2020, which remained unanswered. The complainant has prayed for a refund of the amount along with compensation and litigation cost.
2. In response, OP1 has filed a reply stating that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and is not maintainable as the same is filed by suppressing the material facts. It is averred that the complaint is vague, baseless with mala fide intention and baseless allegation of deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the claim made by the complainant. There is no denial by OP1as to the purchase of the above-stated refrigerator for consideration of Rs.25,000/-. It is submitted that the said product has a warranty of one year and if there is an issue/problem with the said product, then the company shall repair the same free of cost. However, in case of damage to the product or violation of the terms and conditions of the warranty, the warranty policy stands cancelled and the product is repaired on a chargeable basis.
3. There is no denial by OP1 that the complainant approached OP1 for the cooling issue with the product on 20.04.2020,i.e. after 11 months of use of the same wherein the complainant raised an issue of no cooling. Again on 15.05.2020, the complainant approached OP1 with the same issue of non-cooling, where OP1 offered repair along with an extended warranty of 5 months as a goodwill gesture, however, the complainant demanded for refund of the product. OP1 also stated that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed and it is willing and ready to resolve any further issue as per warranty policy and that there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP2 has filed its reply stating that it is not a manufacturing company of the electronic product and it is only a seller to sell the products on display at its store. The purchase of the refrigerator from his shop is not denied.  It is submitted that at the time of the demonstration, the service engineer observed some scratches and a broken ice tray and, on his information, the product was replaced with another brand-new fridge of the same model and delivered to the complainant on 10.06.2019 which was in perfectly working condition when it was installed. OP2 submits that there was no complaint regarding the said product from the complainant and he had all the rights to refuse to accept the delivery of the same if he found any defect. OP2 states that he has no active role to play as the products are serviced by the manufacturer at its authorized service centre and the warranty and guarantee are with the manufacturer only.  OP2 prays for the dismissal of the complaint against him.
5. The complainant has filed rejoinder thereby denying the objections taken by OP1 and OP2 and reiterating the contents of the complaint. All the parties filed their respective evidence.
6. In support of his case, the complainant has filed along with other documents the invoice dated 05.06.2019 for a sum of Rs. 25,050.99/-, Ex.CW1/1; copy of notice dated 18.07.2020, Ex. CW1/2; email dated 09.05.2020, sent to OP2, Ex.CW1/3;
7. OP1 has filed a copy of the job sheet dated 20.04.2020 Ex. OP W1/B and copy of job sheet dated 15.05.2020, Ex. OP W1/C. 
8. This Commission perused the documents on record filed by all the parties and heard the arguments. There is no dispute as to the sale of the refrigerator, the payment of the consideration amount and the cooling complaint in the refrigerator. During the arguments, OP1agreed to refund the whole amount of the refrigerator but the complainant was not agreed to it as he claims compensation also for the harassment and mental agony that he had undergone due to the defective product and services of the OPs. The complainant has placed on record the job card and the service report issued by the engineer which he stated to be there within five months of the purchase which issue was not resolved by the OP1 who admittedly is an expert in its field as per its version in reply and evidence. The complaint’s job cards and emails placed on record by the complainant are not denied by the OP1 and OP2 and the same were attended to by the engineer of OP1. The OP1 has also never certified that the refrigerator given to the complainant is defect-free and it does not require any further rectifications from them, however, OP1 agreed to refund the full amount of the said refrigerator. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the view that OP1 is deficient in the service and the harassment, inconvenience, and physical sufferings suffered by the complainant cannot be overlooked, even if the OP1 is ready to refund the full consideration paid to him. Considering the fact that despite receiving full consideration, the grievances of the complainant have not been resolved, this Commission consider it fit that the ends of justice would meet, if OP1 is directed to refund to the complainant the consideration amount of Rs. 25,050.99/- alonwith interest @6% p.a. and a compensation of Rs.7,500/- towards harassment and mental agony which shall also include the litigation cost. This is further directed to OP1 to get the said refrigerator picked up from the complainant’s house at the time of making the above-said payment to the complainant.
9. The order shall be complied with by OP1 within 30 days from the date of receiving the order failing which the OP1 shall be liable to pay an interest @6% p.a. upon the entire amount, accrued on 31^st day till its actual realization by the complainant.
10. A copy of the order be given to the parties as per CPA, 2019 and thereafter filed to record.
11. The order contains 05 pages each bears our signature.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 03.07.2023.