Delhi

East Delhi

CC/183/2018

RAVI DUTT - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 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.          183/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  08/06/2018

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 26/11/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          29/11/2019  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr  Ravi Dutt 

R/o- Flat no. 2, Amarpali Appt, I P Extn. Delhi-10092…………….…Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-M/s Key Tak Solution     

A-23, Gali no.3. Chander Vihar

Mandawali, I P Extn. Delhi 110092

 

2-M/s Samsung Electronic India pvt Ltd

20-24 Floor, Two Horizon Centre

Golf Course Road, Sec.43, Phase V,  

Gurgaon, Haryana 1220002…………………………..…………………………Opponents

                                           

Complainant                                         In Person  

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

 

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 11/02/2015 from OP1/Key Tak, seller, having model no. 03714PAFCooo17W for a sum of Rs 30000/-having one year standard warranty (Ex CW1/1). The said fridge developed some problem, so complaint on toll free number vide complaint no. 4256104377. Service engineer inspected and rectified problem and charged Rs 1242/-. but again developed same problem so again made complaint to OP2. Service technician was unable to correct defects. After sending number of emails, OP2 replied that the defective parts were not manufactured so offered 56% of invoice value, but it was denied and demanded refund of cost of fridge with compensation of Rs 50,000/-for mental harassment through legal notice dated 23/05/2018.

OP1/seller refused to accept dasti notice as routine notice could not be served, but despite knowing the date of appearance, did not appear so proceeded exparte. OP2 submitted written statement and totally denied for allegations leveled against them. It was admitted that fridge was purchased by complainant from OP1 with proper terms and conditions in warranty card (Ex OPW2/A), but on receiving complaint from complainant and on their service technician note intimated complainant that defective parts were not available as said product had old parts and OP2 had stopped manufacturing so offered refund of 56% of invoice amount as fridge had run well over three years, but complainant did not accept and demanded full invoice price with compensation which was denied by OP2. Hence, there was no deficiency on part of OP2  

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to written statement of OP2 and stressed for getting full invoice amount with compensation. He also submitted evidences through his own affidavit and affirmed on oath relying on all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in his complaint and the said fridge had developed but OP2 did not replace the defective parts in fridge and OP 2 offered to pay 56% amount of invoice which was not acceptable. So complaint be allowed.   

OP2 submitted evidences through their Authorised Representative Mr. Anup Kumar Mathur and affirmed that all their products had standard one year warranty and compressor also had warranty against manufacturing it (Ex. OPW2/2) as per warranty terms and conditions. OP2 relying on service engineer’s report and offered 56% of invoice amount as said fridge had run over three years without any problem. Also some parts were found defective and same parts were not getting manufactured, hence there was no deficiency on the part of OP2. The offered amount was based on depreciation value of the manufacturer.

 

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 seen that the said fridge had run over three years without problem and certain parts were not manufactured by OP2 which was not acceptable to the complainant.

 

It is also on record that OP2 had timely offered refund of depreciable amount which was just and proper. We therefore order that complaint be refunded 56% of the invoice value of rupees 30,000/- within 30 days  from receiving of this order. 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

 

                                                          Sukhdev Singh - President