Punjab

Amritsar

CC/16/211

Gagandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Bhatia

07 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S.Panesar,President.

1. Sh. Gagandeep  Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant purchased one Samsung Inverter AC bearing No. AR12HV5NBWKNNA (TP) OAYWPDCF500562 and AR12HV5NBWKXNA(TP) OAYEPDOF500533 from opposite party No.1  against invoice No. R-0729 dated 15.8.2014 for a sum of Rs. 39,400/-.  The aforesaid AC was having ten years warranty on its compressor. After 3-4 days of the purchase of the said AC, the said AC stopped cooling the room. In this regard complainant approached opposite parties on 28.8.2014 and filed a complaint regarding the non working of the aforesaid Air conditioner vide reference No. 8460119261. It was told by the serviceman of the opposite parties that the gas of the said Air conditioner has been leaked, as such they filled the gas in the said AC. But still the said AC is not working properly. The complainant requested the opposite parties on 10.9.2014, 13.9.2014, 20.9.2014, 26.9.2014, 30.4.2015, 20.6.2015, 27.6.2015 and lastly on 4.10.2015 but no heed has been given to the requests of the complainant. The complainant had been making requests to the opposite parties through whole of the year that the main fault in the AC was due to gas leakage at initial stage, but the opposite parties did not adhere the genuine requests of the complainant. The complainant had been making requests to the opposite parties through whole of the year that the main fault in the said air conditioner was due to gas leakage at initial stage and also there is major manufacturing defect in the said AC, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. The complainant had been requesting the opposite parties during warranty period  to replace the AC with new one but to no avail. Complainant also served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 11.12.2015 but the same left with no effect. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

1. Opposite parties be directed to replace the aforesaid faulty AC with new one or in the alternative the amount of the said AC to the tune of Rs. 39,400/- be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. .
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- may also be awarded to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- may be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant is not entitled for any relief as he has concealed the true and correct facts from this Forum. The AC in question has been purchased on 15.8.2014 and last free service was done on 27.6.2015. The AC in question was perfectly working and gas pressure was also proper when service engineer last visited the premises of the complainant in the month of June 2015 on 27.6.2015 and thoroughly checked the AC in question. But the complainant was adamant for replacement of the unit without any reason ; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency of service or breach of contract on the part of the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party or its service centre has never denied after sale services and they are still ready to provide service to the complainant  but on chargeable basis as the AC in question is out of warranty. There is no inherent defect in the AC nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover the present complaint has been filed after the expiry of warranty period of one year which expired on 14.8.2015, as such the present complaint merits dismissal  ;  that the complainant has concealed the material and necessary information that the obligation of the answering opposite party under warranty is to set right the AC by repairing or replacing the defective part within one year of its purchase as per the terms of warranty. The warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase subject to terms and conditions duly mentioned in the warranty card issued at the time of purchase. The service engineer of opposite party has always attended the complaint lodged by the complainant  but there was no problem in the working of AC  ; that complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement or refund of price of  AC. The complainant has neither alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. In the absence of any expert evidence the claim cannot be allowed. The complainant claims the said AC to be suffering from defects, therefore, it is the legal duty  upon the complainant to establish the same by technical expert report. But no such report has been adduced by the complainant till date before this Forum. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

3.       Whereas opposite party No.1 did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice, as such it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

4.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C-1, duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Mahavir Singh S/o Sh.Sham Singh Ex.CW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Mrs.Preeti Mahajan,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anindya Bose, Deputy General Manager Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as opposite party No.2 and have carefully gone through the record on the file as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.2.

7.       On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 has vehemently contended that it is not disputed that complainant purchased AC in dispute  on 15.8.2014 vide bill/invoice, copy whereof is Ex.C-1 on record. It is also not disputed that the complainant lodged service request on 30.4.2015 and 27.6.2015 respectively which were attended to by the opposite party and satisfactory service was  given to the complainant. The AC belonging to the complainant was working perfectly in order and there was absolutely no defect therein. But, however, complainant has been insisting to get the AC in dispute replaced without any rhyme or reason. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the AC in dispute. There is no expert opinion on record to substantiate the allegation. There has been no leakage of any gas from the AC and the complainant has been making lame excuses to get the AC in dispute replaced from the opposite parties. It is further contended that instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

8.       But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant has been able to prove that the AC in dispute was not working properly. The gas of the compressor of the AC leaked out and it is an admitted fact that the complainant lodged service request on 30.4.2015 and 27.6.2015 regarding the mal-functioning of the AC in dispute. Although the complainant has not been able to prove that the AC in dispute was suffering from any mechanical /manufacturing defect, yet the very fact that the complainant has approached the opposite party admittedly on two occasions shows that the AC in dispute was not working properly. Once it is proved that the gas of the compressor has leaked shows that the compressor was defective. Instead of replacing the compressor, the opposite parties have started wrongly claiming that the complainant was asking for the replacement of the AC in dispute or refund of the sale price thereof from the opposite parties. As per bill/invoice Ex.C-1 the warranty of the compressor was for a period of 10 years from the date of purchase. No customer would like to approach the service centre time and again , if the gadget been working perfectly in order and the allegations of the opposite parties to the contrary sans any force. As a matter of fact  to ward off the complainant, opposite party has coined the lame excuse. As such in our considered opinion , the opposite party No.2 is under legal obligation to replace the compressor of the AC in dispute with new one and make the AC in dispute workworthy to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount from him and the complaint stands allowed accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order  ; failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

 

Dated:  7.10.2016.                                                                                                                                                                                     

/R/