Punjab

SAS Nagar Mohali

CC/692/2014

Kudleep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bala ji Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.692 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          12.12.2014

                                                     Date of Decision:            06.07.2015

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Ranjit Singh, village Jangpura, Tehsil Banur, District SAS Nagar.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     MS Shri Balraji Enterprises at Ambala – Chandigarh NHW Opp. IDBI Bank, Royal Estate, Near N.K. Sharma Office, Zirakpur (Punjab).

        (Name of OP No.1 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 01.07.2015).

2.     EMM ESS Enterprises, Booth No.41-42, New Grain Market, Opp. Dyal Palace, Rajpura 140401.

(Name of OP No.2 impleaded vide order dated 21.01.2015).

3.     Samsung Electronics Company Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110044.

(Name of OP No.3 impleaded vide order dated 29.04.2015).

 

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member

 

Present:    Complainant in person.

Opposite Party No.2 and 3 ex-parte.

Name of OP No.1 deleted.

 

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    refund the cost of the fridge and also the charges incurred thereafter on the repair of the fridge.

(b)    pay him compensation for harassment.

 

                The case of the complainant is that he purchased a fridge of Samsung 250 liters  from OP No.1 vide invoice No.1024 dated 30.03.2012 by paying cash amount of Rs.16,000/-. When the fridge was put to use, the complainant found the cooling system of the fridge not working. Therefore, he lodged complaint on Phone No.180026688282 i.e. the customer care centre. The complaint was attended to by a mechanic of the OPs and he repaired the fridge. But the defect in the cooling system still persisted as the same has not been rectified. Thereafter, the complainant lodged various complaints on 24.10.2013, 09.04.2014, 12.04.2012, 19.06.2014 and 11.10.2014 on the customer care centre number. Every time the mechanic of the OPs came to the complainant and charged Rs.280/- per visit i.e. in total Rs.1680/- for six visits but no receipt was given to the complainant.  The mechanic of the OPs on the complaint of the complaint repaired the fridge and charged Rs.2130/- from the complainant on the ground that a part has been replaced in the fridge without giving him any receipt of the amount.  However, on a computerized statement the mechanic mentioned in his own handwriting receipt of Rs.2130/-. Therefore, despite having charged the visitation charges of Rs.1680/- and repair charges of Rs.2130/-   the defect in the fridge remained un-rectified.  When the grievance of the complainant was not addressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act has been filed. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged deficiency in rendering services and indulgence of unfair trade practice by the OPs. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP No.1 which was received back with the report that the OP No.1 has left the given address. The complainant was directed to furnish the fresh address of OP No.1 which he failed and ultimately on the statement of the complainant, name of OP No.1 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 01.07.2015 and instead of OP No.1 i.e. the seller of the fridge, the complainant has      impleaded OP No.2 and 3 in the array of the OPs, as OP No.2 is the service centre and OP No.3 is the manufacturer.  Despite proper and effective service to OP No.2 and 3, none appeared, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 23.02.2015 and 01.06.2015 respectively.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-4.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.

5.             In order to prove the purchase of the fridge, the complainant has prpodued Ex.C-1 i.e. the bill issued by OP No.1 showing the description of fridge and its price i.e. bill No.1424 dated 30.03.2012 Samsung Refrigerator 280 Ltrs. at a cost of Rs.16,000/- including tax. Thus, the complainant is a consumer who has purchased the goods after paying agreed consideration. The perusal of the bill further shows that the fridge in question is of Samsung Brand which is manufactured by OP No.3.  Thus, the complainant is a consumer and OP No.2 being a service centre is a service provider who was to provide after sale service to the complainant as per Refrigerator User Manual Ex.C-4.

6.             In order to prove that the fridge was defective and the complainant has lodged the complaint on customer care centre toll free number as the toll free number mentioned in Ex.C-4 tallies with the same number as mentioned in the complaint. Further the reporting of the complaint on toll free number and having been attended by the mechanic of OP No.2 is corroborative by Ex.C-3. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows the date of purchase of fridge, service order number 4185186464 and service type H and date of appointment 26.11.2014 whereas in response to the said request, the OP No.2 and 3 have assigned the job to ASC on 18.11.2014 with the instructions to look into 3 symptoms in the fridge i.e. symptom No.L3 Operation, symptom No. 02 claim for temperature and symptom No.3 – 02 refrigerator not cold enough.  As per the complainant the said defects have been checked and rectified by OP No.2 on 20.11.2014 by changing the PCB and charging Rs.2130/- from the complainant.  The said fact of change of PCB upon payment of Rs.2130/- is duly proved from Ex.C-3.   However, the complainant has not signed the report of change of PCB and has not certified that the repairs done to his satisfaction.

7.             Whether the grievance of the complainant that charging of Rs.2130/- from the complainant plus visiting charges of Rs.1680/- @ Rs.280/- per visit is well founded or not.  Whether the fridge in question was under warranty or the part changed by the OPs upon charging was under warranty being free of cost, the complainant has not produced any warranty card. The perusal of bill Ex.C-1 shows that there is no express guarantee or warrantee mentioned on the bill. Even if that be so, still the Ops are not authorized to sell the defective goods to the complainant and rendering ineffective after sale service.

8.             Therefore, from the evidence on record it is proved that the complainant has been sold a defective refrigerator which requires frequent repairs and the defect still remained un-rectified. Thus, this is a case of clear cut case of deficiency in rendering the service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the fridge but has not produced any technical report in this regard. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation is aimed at providing for better protection of interests of the consumers as defined in the Preamble of the act itself, therefore, given the facts at hand, the interests of the complainant in the present case can be protected only if he is provided a fridge which is free from defects from all angles and the complainant is not subjected to proving the technicalities whether any manufacturing defect exists or not. In fact when a new product is sold to the consumer, there is an implied contract between the manufacturer seller and the buyer that the goods being sold to him do not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity and potency and standard which is required to be maintained as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Vs. Rajesh Tyagi & others 2014 (1) CLT 238. Therefore, the complainant has purchased the fridge with the implied understanding that it is defect free whereas upon usage it has been found otherwise.

9.             To disprove the manufacturing defect in the strict technical sense, it was the paramount duty of the OPs to attend to this aspect and ensure that the defects are removed and the fridge is delivered to the complainant in a perfectly fit condition alongwith the certificate of fitness under the signatures of its top technical officer. The OPs have chosen to remain absent from the proceedings of this Forum despite service.

10.           As alleged in the complaint, the defect in the fridge was regarding 3 symptoms i.e. symptom No.L3 Operation, symptom No. 02 claim for temperature and symptom No.3 – 02 refrigerator not cold enough and the same have been repaired by replacement of PCB but the defects remained un-rectified. Therefore, the deficiency in service of rendering proper and effective after sale service has been writ large on the part of the OPs.

11.           It is ample evident that the fridge in question was purchased on 30.03.2012 and the main PCB has been changed on 18.11.2014 by charging Rs.2200/- the cost of the PCB including labour. This fact per se shows that the defective fridge having been manufactured by OP no.3 has been sold to the complainant by OP No.1. The OP No.3 being reputed manufacturer of the fridge and other electrical goods and appliances provide inherent guarantee with regard to quality and performance of its product and also proper and effective after sale service which in the present case it has miserably failed. Thus, the act of OP No.3 is an act of unfair trade practice and the act of OP No.2 i.e. failure to provide satisfactory free of cost after sale service is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, on both the counts the complainant has proved his case on the basis of evidence as appreciated above. For the acts of omission and commission on the part of OP Nos. 2 and 3 the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the mental agony and harassment suffered for the last three years and has been deprived of the use and benefit of the refrigerator in question.

12.           The complainant has initially filed complaint against OP No.1 and sought relief against it, however, subsequently he has given up OP no.1 and desired not to proceed against it and, therefore, has restricted his relief against newly added parties OP No.2 and 3. Hence, complaint against OP No.1 is not maintainable and hence dismissed.

13.           Thus, the complaint is hereby allowed with the following directions to OP No. 2 and 3:

(a)    OP No.3 to replace the refrigerator in question with the new defect free refrigerator of the same model.

(b)    OP No.2 to refund amount of Rs.2,200/- (Rs.Two thousand two hundred only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till actual payment.

(c)    OP Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

July 06, 2015.     

                                                                                                                                      (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

 

 

                                                       

(Amrinder Singh)

Member