Delhi

East Delhi

CC/89/2016

V.B SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2019

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092

                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no            89 / 2016

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  04/03/2016

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 15/01/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          18/01/2019  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. V  P Singh, adult 

S/o- Late Sh. V D Singh  

R/o- E-176, Saraswati Kunj Apartment,

Plot no. 25, I P Extn. Patpargunj, Delhi 110092………………….…Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Samsung India Electronic Ltd.,    

SL-14 B1, Express Avenue,

White Road, Royapettah, Chennai

 

2- M/s Kalpana Digital World,     

1/10,12, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar

Main Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092…………..…………………………………Opponents

                                      

Complainant’s Advocate -                  Mr H V Rastogi  

Opponent’s Advocate -                       Mr Prashant Arora c/o Kapoor & Co. Advo.

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh        President

                         Dr P N Tiwari                Member 

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                                 

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case -

  

Complainant purchased Samsang refrigerator on 08/04/2012 from OP2/ M/s Kalpana Digital World/seller, having model no. RT-2734PNBSE for a sum of Rs 17,200/-vide invoice no. K-00290/12-13 (Ex CW1/1) and (Ex. CW1/2&3 colly). The said fridge developed cooling problem on 30/10/2015, so lodged complaint to OP1/Samsung India Electronic Ltd., the manufacturer, on 01/11/2015. Service engineer inspected and noted some problem in compressor which caused leakage of gas. It was assured that gas would be filled in 2-3 days, but no one attended so again lodged complaint on customer care number. Service engineer revisited and filled gas and told that fridge would start working now, but fridge did not start so sent a legal notice on 01/01/2016 to OP1 for deficiency in services and alleged defective product was sold by OP1, so claimed compensation Rs 50,000/-for harassment and mental agony (Ex CW1/4). When no reply received, filed this complaint and claimed replacement of fridge with compensation sum of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation fee Rs 22,000/-. 

OP1/manufacturer filed joint written statement on behalf of their service engineer’s report and seller and denied all the allegations put against them by complainant. It was admitted that complainant had purchased the said fridge as per Ex CW1/1 and worked well up to 30/10/2015. The fridge worked well over three years thereafter gas was found leaked due to chocking of internal parts and had many other defects as some electric parts were burnt and tempering of code numbers for which photos were put as evidences. Complainant had not annexed any job sheet or warranty card which was always supplied with fridge in a sealed box. As the compressor had five years warranty and external body parts had one year standard warranty submitted by OP1 (Ex OP1W/1). It was wrong to allege that the said fridge had any manufacturing defect as it had run without any defect for over three years. After lodging complaint, compressor was checked which was found running well, but had no gas which was told to get filled after paying charges as gas does not have warranty. There was no evidence from any technical expert either from complainant or service engineer that the compressor had any manufacturing defect rather it was due to damages of certain parts. Hence, it was wrongly alleged for deficiency in service and had manufacturing defect. Thus there was no harassment for which huge amount was claimed.  

OP also relied on judgment of NC in ‘Sushila Automobiles Ltd. vs Dr Birendra Narain & others’, 3(2010) CPJ 130 NC for above explanation and also relied on ‘Shiv Prasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machinery Co’. I (2006) CPJ 92 NC, where it was held that ‘en equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired.’ Hence, there was no deficiency on part of OPs.  

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to the written statement replies submitted by OP1 and denied the facts. It was stated that the said fridge was a defective and OP 2 did not replace for a new fridge.  He also submitted his evidences on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in complaint and the said fridge had manufacturing defect, but OP did not replace the fridge (Ex CW1/1 to 4). 

OP1 submitted their evidence on affidavit through their Authorised Representative Mr Anindya Bose with OP1 and affirmed that their all products had standard one year warranty and compressor also had warranty against manufacturing it (Ex. OPW1/A &B). OP also relied on service engineer’s report who took photographs (ExOPW1/C) showing tempering of sticker (Ex OPW1/C). So, complainant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect as said fridge worked well for over three years and thereafter due to external factors and mishandling and due to electricity fluctuations may had burnt the parts. Though these parts do not had warranty over one year, so required to be replaced after paying. As there was no manufacturing defect, so there was no question for replacement of fridge to new one. It had gas leakage problem after over three year of its use without any evidence of defect and was timely inspected as soon as complaint was lodged by complainant.  

Arguments were heard and order was reserved after perusing material on record.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP1 that the said fridge was purchased by the complainant, but denied to have any manufacturing defect. Also it has been seen that there was no evidence of manufacturing defect and fridge worked well for over three years without defect. In absence of any concrete evidence from complainant, it is thus observed that the fridge had no manufacturing defect. OP2 being the seller, and no liability could be fastened on OP2.

As OPs citations were applicable in this case, but we have also relied on citations as –

1-Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal, RP 2309/2008NC,

2-Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors India Ltd & others, 2009IICLT 670 NC,

3-Kamal Kishore vs Electronics Corporation of India, RP 3029/2010 NC, where law laid down were same as “replacement was only done if manufacturing defect was proved by expert report or seen”.

When no defect has been proved by complainant on any concrete evidence pertaining to deficiency in services of OP or pertaining to manufacturing defect, no liability can be fastened on OP1. So complaint may be dismissed, but in the interest of justice we advice complainant, if he desires so, to get the damaged parts replaced on payment through authorised service centre of OP1 within one month, service centre of OP1 shall not charge for any service to be rendered by them on compressor as it had over one year warranty left when problem of cooling was reported. Service centre shall charge actual rates of the parts to be replaced. All other charges like gas filling, electric parts to be replaced shall be borne by complainant. There shall be no other order to cost.

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member

                                                         

                                                          Shri Sukhdev Singh - President