Haryana

Ambala

CC/153/2019

Sanjay Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shilpa Agencies. - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Bansal

23 Apr 2021

ORDER

 

                         BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                       Complaint case no  : 153 of 2019

                                                                       Date of Institution  : 03.05.2019

                                                                       Date of decision     : 23.04.2021

Sanjay Puri aged 50 years son of Late Shri Surinder Mohan Puri , resident of House No.6820/4, Kalal Majri, Railway Road, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

1.  Shilpa Agencies, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt., through its Authorized Signatory (Mobile No.92543-30027, 0171-2630027).

2.  Kohli Telecome, 374-A, Near Gurudwara, Prem Nagar, Ambala City, through its authorised signatory (Mb. No.98962-32683, 70277-78455).

 

3.  Samsung India Electronics, Head Office at A-25, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Saidabad, New Delhi, through its’ Authorized Signatory.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Shri Shekhar Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 already ex parte v.o.d. 04.07.2019.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for Ops No.2 and 3.

 

 

 Order:        SHRI VINOD KUMAR SHARMA,  MEMBER

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective Samsung Refrigerator Model R5552NRUA Samsung side by side REF 0cz94abf900055 by new one or to return the cost of the same amounting Rs.80,000/- vide invoice No.SA (14-15) 3220 dated 17.12.2014, to the complainant.
2. To pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the cost of the refrigerator from the date of its purchase i.e. 17.12.2014 till its realization.
3. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental  agony and physical harassment suffered by  him.
4. To pay Rs.22,000/- as litigations charges.
342.  

Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator Model No.R5552NRUA Samsung side by side Ref. 0cz94abf900055 amounting Rs.80,000/- vide invoice no.SA(14-15) 3220 dated 17.12.2014 from OP No.1. Op No.1 assured him the complete warranty of 10 years. After some days, refrigerator in question started giving problem of not cooling properly, due to which eatables kept in the refrigerator started spoiling. Complainant informed about the same to OP no.1. OP No.1 through their official, after verifying disclosed to the complainant that refrigerator in question requires gas filling. On this complainant got filled gas in the refrigerator from OP No.2 i.e. Authorized Service Centre of Samsung India. Thereafter, said refrigerator worked hardly for some days and again started giving same problem. Complainant against informed about the same to OP No.1. OP No.1 again disclosed that it has cooling problem because of shortage of gas and in this manner, complainant got filled gas number of times. Complainant many times requested the OP No.1 to get the refrigerator replaced as same was under warranty, but OP No.1 requested the complainant to get the gas filled last time and if this time it gives problem, then he will get the same replaced with a new one. On the assurance of OP No.1, lastly on 02.04.2019, complainant got gas filled in the refrigerator in question from OP No.2, being authorized service centre of OP No.3 and paid charges for the same vide bill No.3976 dated 02.04.2019. After some days, it again started giving problem of cooling and complainant again informed about the same to OP No.1. On this complaint was forwarded to OP No.2 as the OP No.1 clearly told that if there will be any manufacturing defect of non-repairable type, only then the product will be replaced with new one without cost, being under warranty period. On repeated requests of the complainant, official of OP No.2 came to the house of the complainant who had given his opinion that ‘there is internal leakage from Condenser Unit, non repairable’ vide customer Service Record Card dated 18.04.2019. Complainant showed the said report to OP No.1 and requested to get the refrigerator in question replaced, but OP no.1 flatly refused to do the same and threatened him.  Keeping in view the necessity, complainant spent Rs.13,000/- for no fault on his part. By selling a defective product, OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.       Upon notice, OP No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not coming before this Commission with clean hands, frivolous complaint etc. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is not an authorized dealer of answering OPs and answering OPs are not responsible for any action/inaction/omission of OP No.1. Further submitted that company provides one year warranty on the unit and five years warranty only for the compressor of the unit from the date of purchase of unit (in case of unit with smart digital invertor compressor, the warrant of 10 years would be provided only for smart digital invertor compressor). Complainant has reported the issue of No cooling with answering OPs on 01.04.2019 and on 15.04.2019 and services have been provided to the complainant on both the occasions. A commercial solution was also provided to the complainant for his unit, but he refused to avail the same, so there is no deficiency on the part of answering Ops. Complainant, complained regarding the unit in question and approached the answering OPs on 01.04.2019 vide call No.4279991785 and reported NO COOLING ISSUES in his unit. The engineer of the company visited the premises of the complainant and checked the unit and found that DRYER, RELAY and GAS of the unit needs to be replaced. The engineer of the company told the complainant that warranty period of one year has got expired and as per condition of warranty of one year of unit, the unit will be repaired on chargeable basis. The complainant agreed to the same and got the same replaced and refrigerator in question started working properly. Complainant again on 15.04.2019 vide call No.4280849093 and reported NO COOLING ISSUES in the unit. The engineer found that there is an internal leakage issue. During the span of time, the usability and novelty of a product goes down after use of product. And in the present case, the unit has been used by complainant for a long time of approximate four and a half year and for the reason, the usability and novelty of the unit of complainant has got depreciated. The answering OPs told the complainant that there is no refund policy as per the warranty policy, but only account of goodwill gesture, the answering OPs as per company policy, offered a commercial solution (deprecated refund) for the alleged unit to complainant, which complainant refused to accept. Services have been provided to the complainant on each and every occasion, so there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complainant with heavy costs.

                   Upon notice neither OP No.1 nor anyone on its behalf has turned up and on 04.07.2018, it was proceeded ex parte.  

3.                To prove the version of the complainant, Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 tendered affidavit of Anup Kumar Mathur C/o Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon as  Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence of OPs no.2 and 3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for contesting parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.              During the course of arguments ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the version of the complaint. Ld. Counsel for Ops no.2 and 3 also reiterated the version of the written version.

6.                Annexure C-1 is the invoice which shows that complainant purchased the refrigerator in question on 17.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Annexure C/3 shows that refrigerator in question is having warranty period of 10 years. From perusal of Annexure C/2 and C/4, it is clearly established that refrigerator in question got defective within warranty period and despite repairs, same had not worked properly. Annexure C-2 i.e. photograph of the refrigerator in question shows that there is warranty of 10 years of compressor. In Annexure C-4 i.e. Customer Service Record, Engineer of the company in the Defect Detected (by engineer) has clearly mentioned that No Cooling, Internal Leakage from condenser unit, non repairable, which clearly proves that the defect arisen in the refrigerator in question is non-repairable. As the refrigerator in question became defective in warranty period and despite repeated repairs, the refrigerator in question failed to perform well. Therefore, it can easily be said that the refrigerator in question got defected within the warranty period. The defect in the refrigerator in question was with regard to cooling and the condenser was need to be replaced, which was not covered under the warranty of 10 years. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty Annexure OP/1 there is nowhere mentioned that company will replace the product or refund the cost. However, the OPs in their written version submitted that they told the complainant that there is no refund policy as per the warranty policy, but only account of goodwill gesture, the OP company, as per company policy, offered a commercial solution (deprecated refund) for the alleged unit to complainant. From the records it is clearly borne out that refrigerator in question was purchased in the year 2014 and the problem arose in the year 2019. It is a natural fact that if an electronic product or any other product is used with a span of time then there would be some wear and tear of the product. Due to usage of the refrigerator in question with span of time, some minor wear and tear is possible to be arisen. Since, there is no proof with regard to warranty on the condenser or cooling related issues, despite the fact that they are not included under warranty after expire of a years, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if OP company i.e. OPs No.2 and 3 would refund the depreciated value of the refrigerator in question as a goodwill gesture. As the Engineer of the Company himself/herself has clearly mentioned in the Annexure C-4 that the defect is not repairable, then the OPs No.2 and 3as per the terms and conditions of the product are bound to pay 50% of the cost of the refrigerator in question as a goodwill gesture. They are also liable to pay the compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation charges. Since, there is no specific allegation nor anything on record has been brought by the complainant that OP No.1 is also liable, therefore we dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.1.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.1 and partly allow the present complaint against the OPs No. 2 and 3. The OPs No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed in following manner:

1. To refund 50% of the cost of the refrigerator in question i.e. Rs.40,000/- as a goodwill gesture to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

The OPs No. 2 and 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supply to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 23.04.2021

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)     (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                         Member             President