Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

224/2011

C.Senthil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sathya Agencies (P) Ltd., & others - Opp.Party(s)

V.Gopal & Others

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 10.08.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.224 /2011

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

C. Senthil Kumar,

Saraswathi Stores,

No.15, Ramakrishna Street,

Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                   

 

    ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Sathya Agencies (P) Ltd.,

No.4, Arcot Road,

Jamal Splendar, Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.

 

2.  The Manager,

Samsung Service Plaza,

No.85/1, Nactowers,

Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

3. The General Manager,

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

7 & 8^th Floors, IFCI Tower,

No.61, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 110 019.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                     :  M/s. V. Gopi & others

Counsel for 1^st opposite party            :  Exparte

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties  :  M/s. V.V. Giridhar & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to return a sum of Rs.13,400/- towards cost of the fridge and to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, stress, loss, hardship and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he has purchased a new Samsung Fridge, Model No. RT 24 BDMS  from the 1^st opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.13,400/-.  The warranty period is from 15.06.2010 to 15.06.2011.  During the month of February 2011, the fridge had a problem in cooling and freezing capacity and the fridge was not in order.  Immediately the complainant, contacted the 1^st opposite party through customer care and lodged a complaint.   But nobody turned up for attending the problem for more than 1½ months.  Again, the complainant called the 1^st opposite party on 13.05.2011 to find out the status.  At that time also, nobody turned up. The complainant contacted the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties on 22.08.2005. Evenafter continuous complaints, one Engineer named Mr. Rajarajan came to the complainant’s shop and checked the fridge and stated that there was no gas in the fridge and the gas was duly filled up on 18.05.2011 by a service person named Mr. Sunil Kumar.   Even after, that the cooling and freezing capacity was totally decreased, the complainant duly informed it to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties through person and phone.   By that time, the warranty period is almost completed.  The complainant issued a letter dated:02.06.2011 which was duly received by the 2^nd opposite party on 03.06.2011. The 1 & 2^nd opposite parties deliberately, with malafide intention neglected to repair the fridge and drove the complainant from pillar to post caused mental agony.   Thereafter, the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is as follows:

The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that immediately, after receipt of the compliant, the Service Engineer attended the service call and found that there was no problem with regard to the functioning and only gas has to be filled up.   The Service Engineer also duly filled up the gas and there was no defect in the fridge.  Further the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that immediately, after receipt of  the repeated complaints, the Service Engineer attended the service call and the temperature was adjusted manually in the fridge and the service call was closed by reporting that ‘no fault’ in the fridge.  Further it is stated that the allegation of the complainant that there are manufacturing defect in the fridge is absolutely false.  Further the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties state that the attitude of the service personal is unfriendly, unethical and negligent are denied as false.    Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice the 1^st opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum and hence the 1^st opposite party was set Exparte.

4.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties filed and no documents marked on the side of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties as their evidence.

 

 

 

5.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund for a sum of Rs.13,400/- towards the cost price of the fridge as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum  of Rs.85,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

6.     On point:

The 1^st opposite party remained Exparte.  The complainant has not filed any written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents, written arguments of the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he has purchased a new Samsung Fridge, Model No. RT 24 BDMS  from the 1^st opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.13,400/- as per  Ex.A1.  The warranty period is from 15.06.2010 to 15.06.2011.  Ex.A2 is the warranty card.   During the month of February 2011, the fridge had a problem in cooling and freezing capacity and the fridge was not in order.  Immediately the complainant, contacted the 1^st opposite party through customer care and lodged a complaint.   But nobody turned up for attending the problem for more than 1½ months.  Again, the complainant called the 1^st opposite party on 13.05.2011 to find out the status.    At that time also, nobody turned up.   The complainant contacted the 1^st 1 & 2^nd opposite parties on 22.08.2005.    Evenafter continuous complaints, one Engineer named Mr. Rajarajan came to the complainant’s shop and checked the fridge and stated that there was no gas in the fridge and the gas was duly filled up on 18.05.2011 by a service person named Mr. Sunil Kumar.   Even after, that the cooling and freezing capacity was totally decreased, the complainant duly informed it to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties through person and phone.   By that time, the warranty period is almost completed.  The complainant issued a letter dated:02.06.2011 as per Ex.A3 which was duly received by the 2^nd opposite party on 03.06.2011 vide Ex.A4 copy of the postal receipt and Ex.A5 copy of the acknowledgement card. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties deliberately, with malafide intention neglected to repair the fridge and drove the complainant from pillar to post which caused mental agony.  The deficiency in service of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are apparent.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.13,400/-, the cost of the fridge and a compensation of Rs.85,000/- towards mental agony with cost.

7.     The contention of the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is that immediately, after receipt of the compliant, the Service Engineer attended the service call and found that there was no problem with regard to the functioning and only gas has to be filled up.   The Service Engineer also duly filled up the gas and there was no defect in the fridge.  But the opposite parties has not produced any document to prove that for what reason the cooling and freezing effect decreased.   Further the contention of the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is that immediately, after receipt of  the repeated complaints, the Service Engineer attended the service call and the temperature was adjusted manually in the fridge and the service call was closed by reporting that ‘no fault’ in the fridge.   The allegation that there are manufacturing defect in the fridge is absolutely false.  But the opposite parties has not produced any record.    Further the contention of the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties is that the attitude of the service personal is unfriendly, unethical and negligent are denied as false.   But it is very clear from the pleadings and documents of the complainant that none of the service persons properly and timely attended the complaint.   It is also very clear from the records, that the alleged defect of cooling and freezing occurred within the period of warranty and the opposite parties only transferred the gas in the compressor which has not fully recovered from the defect of cooling and freezing.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall do the complete service in the fridge within one month, failing which, the opposite parties shall refund a sum of Rs.13,400/- with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to do complete service in the complaint mentioned refrigerator within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, to refund a sum of Rs.13,400/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand and four hundred  only) towards the cost price of the refrigerator and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of purchase bill issued by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of Samsung warranty card issued by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the opposite parties
		Copy of the postal receipts
		Copy of acknowledgement card from the 2nd opposite party
	30.06.2011  04.07.2011	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties with acknowledgement cards

 

2 & 3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT