BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA
Consumer Complaint No. 121 of 2019
Date of Institution : 08.03.2019
Date of Decision : 1.10.2019
Suryansh Yadav son of Shri Sunil Yadav, resident of House No.339, Gali No.10A, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus
- Satya Sales, Near R.C. Regency Hotel, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
- Samsung Service Centre, Ground Floor, Parkash Ratna Complex Street near Andhra Bank, Barnala Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizons Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurugram, Haryana- 122 202, through its Manager/ Incharge.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that on 15.10.2017, complainant had purchased a brand new Samsung refrigerator bearing production description as RT28K3022SE/NL-REF-FF-Sno. 0A4Y4ZAH701241, HSN Code 84181090, for a sum of Rs.21,000/- vide invoice No.SC6897 dated 15.10.2017 from opposite party no.1. The complainant was given seven years warranty on this refrigerator against all manufacturing defects and refrigerator is manufactured by op no.3. It is further averred that since after installation of the said refrigerator, same is not working properly and efficiently and there has been very less cooling from the said refrigerator. That the complainant reported the above defect in the refrigerator to op no.1 on many occasions and op no.1 got the same checked up from engineer of op no.2 and he made some adjustment in the same but same could not be brought in perfect working order. The complainant also lodged complaints with op no.1 on 28.6.2018, 3.8.2018, 8.8.2018 and 11.10.2018. On these complaints, the engineer of op no.2 checked the said refrigerator, but even then same could not be brought in perfect working order. Now, the complainant has come to know that on the complaint dated 28.6.2018, it is shown that the PCB of the said refrigerator has been replaced with a new one, but actually the PCB is not changed/ replaced and same PCB is lying installed which was fitted at the time of purchase of refrigerator. It shows that op no.2 has been indulged in unfair trade practice and has claimed new PCB from company against his refrigerator and has affixed the same to some other refrigerator. It is further averred that now refrigerator is lying in defective condition with the complainant as the same is not giving proper cooling and it shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the said refrigerator and that same cannot be repaired and the ops have failed to bring the said refrigerator in perfect working condition. That complainant approached the op no.1 and requested to replace the defective refrigerator with a new one or to refund its price, but of no use. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops on 25.10.2018 but to no effect and now the ops have flatly refused to do so. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Forum and were proceeded against exparte.
3. On notice, opposite party no.3 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the product which cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same and in absence of any technical report, the complaint deserves dismissal. It is further submitted that services have been provided to complainant whenever reported/ demanded by complainant and it is the complainant who refused to avail services of answering op just only to create false allegations against the answering op. In fact, the complainant in regard to complaint regarding the unit in question approached to answering op on 26.6.2018 vide call no.4263392098 and reported No cooling problem in his unit. The engineer of answering op visited the premises of complainant and checked the unit and it was found that Inverter PCB of the unit needs replacement. The engineer changed the Inverter PCB of unit and unit started working fine and unit was made OK. After that complainant again approached to answering op on 28.6.2018 vide call No.4263491110 and again reported No cooling issue in the unit. The engineer checked the unit and found that temperature of the unit was at high and he told to complainant that no cooling issue is due to selection of high temperature of unit and there is no defect in the unit. The engineer adjusted the temperature of unit and unit started working fine, unit made OK. After that the complainant again approached to answering op for three times i.e. on 3.8.2018, 8.8.2018 and on 11.10.2018 and all the three times, the complainant reported for some issue and when engineer visited the premises of complainant, he refused to get the unit repaired/ checked and without checking the unit, how can the engineer repair/ diagnose the unit, so there is no deficiency in services on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that after that, the complainant served a baseless and vague legal notice alleging any problem in the unit and once again it was put to his knowledge that without checking the unit, it is not possible for answering op to repair/ diagnose the unit and once again it has been requested to be allowed to check the unit, but the complainant did not adhere to the genuine request of op company. The answering op was and is always ready to provide services, but it is the complainant who refused to get repaired/ diagnosed the unit. It is further submitted that answering op provides one year warranty on the unit and five years warranty only for the compressor of the unit and also warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per warranty policy. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 and reply to legal notice Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit of Sh. Anup Kumar Mathur Ex.R1, copy of warranty card Ex.R2 and copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R3.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased Samsung refrigerator on 15.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.21,000/- from op no.1 which is evident from the copy of invoice Ex.C1 and according to complainant he was given seven years warranty of this product. As per allegations of complainant, after installation of the refrigerator, same is not working properly and there has been very less cooling. He reported the defect to op no.1 on many occasions and op no.1 got same checked from the engineer of op no.2 and they made some adjustment in the refrigerator, but however, same is not working properly. He lodged complaints with op no.1 on 28.6.2018, 3.8.2018, 8.8.2018 and on 11.10.2018. There are further allegations of complainant that PCB of the refrigerator has been replaced with new one as per version of op no.2 but same has not been changed. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, but however, he has not placed on record any opinion of the expert that refrigerator suffers from some manufacturing defect. It is settled principle of law that until and unless report of an expert is not there, no order for replacement of the product can be passed directly.
8. Though, it has been admitted by op no.3 that PCB of the refrigerator has been replaced but at the same time, there are allegations of complainant that still refrigerator is not working properly and ops no.1 and 2 did not put their appearance and opted to be proceeded against exparte. However, complaint has been contested by op no.3 who is manufacturer of the product. It is proved fact on record that op no.3 is selling its product through dealer/ distributor like op no.1 and is liable for the service of the product.
9. Since, complainant is approaching time and again to the ops to get his refrigerator defect free and it is legal obligation of the ops to make refrigerator in question defect free and non providing of such services to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.
10. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the refrigerator of the complainant even by replacing any part to make it defect free without any cost within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of refrigerator and in case it is found that same is not repairable, then they are further directed to replace the refrigerator with a new one of same make and model without any cost within further period of 15 days and in case the refrigerator of the same make and model is not available, then the ops are directed to make refund of the amount of Rs.21,000/- i.e. sale price of the refrigerator to the complainant within said period, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated: 1.10.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
