BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2014
Filed on : 29/01/2013
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.71/2013
Between
M.G. Joseph, : Complainant
Malat (Bakery), Kumbalanghy, (Party-in-person)
Cochi-682 007.
Vs
1. Samsung Service Centre, : Opposite parties
29/5B First Floor, (By Adv. P. Fazil,
S.A. Road, Vytila, M/s. Lawyers United, 2nd Floor
Cochin-19. Metro Plaza, Market road, North,
Kochi-682 028)
2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
M.G. Road, Thomson Chambers,
Pallimukku Jn.,
Ernakulam-682 016.
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 25-02-2008 the complainant purchased a refrigerator from Next retail shop which was manufactured by the opposite parties. After 4 years, the complainant found that the refrigerator has no cooling and the same has been taken by the service centre on 07-01-2013. On 21-01-2013 the complainant received a letter from the service centre that the defect is not
repairable. The complainant requested the service centre to replace the same with a new one to which there was no response. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator with a new one together with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The complainant had purchased a refrigerator on 25-02-2008. The first complaint about the refrigerator was on 24-12-2012. The warranty was for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The compressor of the refrigerator alone had a comprehensive warranty of 4 years from the date of expiry of one year. The opposite parties were prepared to attend the complaint, however the complainant did not turn up. Another complaint was registered on 01-01-2013 and found to be case of gas leakage. Later on 07-01-2013 during check up it was found that the internal condenser coil was damaged which could not be repaired as it was in built within the body of the refrigerator. The opposite parties suggested that an external condenser can be fixed for an amount of Rs. 2,065/- for which the complainant was not willing. He insisted for a replacement by a new refrigerator. The compressor which is damaged herein is not covered by the warranty. There has not been any manufacturing defect to the refrigerator.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exbts. A1 to A3 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the
refrigerator in question with a new one?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.
10,000/- to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a refrigerator on 25-02-2008 from Next retail shop at a price of Rs. 15,500/- which was manufactured by the opposite parties evident from Exbt. A1 invoice. On 07-01-2013 at the instance of the complainant the service centre of the opposite parties took the refrigerator to the service centre for repairs evidenced by Exbt. A2 work order. Thereafter the service centre sent Ext. A3 letter dated 21-01-2013 to the complainant stating that the refrigerator is presently in a non-repairable stage.
6. It is to be noted that neither party did produce the terms and conditions of the warranty. However the opposite parties in their version stated that the product has warranty for a period of one year and the compressor alone had a comprehensive warranty of 4 years from the date of expiry of one year. Further the opposite parties in their version stated that the compressor which is damaged is not covered by the warranty. The above statements of the opposite parties will not go together for the simple reason that the service centre has taken the refrigerator for repairs on 07-01-2013 which is well within the 5 year warranty for the compressor. In that view of the matter the opposite parties are legally liable to rectify the defects of the refrigerator free of cost, since nothing is on record to prove the manufacturing defect of the same. If the refrigerator is in a non repairable stage the opposite parties are liable to replace the same with a new one.
7. Point No. ii. We think that the above direction is enough to mitigate the grievances of the complainant. So we refrain from awarding compensation.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally rectify the defects of the refrigerator free of cost and re-deliver the same at the residence of the complainant in working condition
OR
In the alternative the opposite parties shall jointly and severally replace the refrigerator with a new one according to the choice of the complainant and the difference in price if any shall be met by either.
ii. The opposite parties are at liberty to choose either of the above direction.
iii. If the opposite parties chose to comply with the 2nd limb of the above direction, they are at liberty to retain the defective refrigerator.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2014.
Sd/-
A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Copy of invoice dt. 25-02-2008
A2 : Copy of work order dt. 07/01/2013
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 21/01/2013
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
