BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 357 of 2015

Date of Institution: 03.06.2015

Date of Decision: 01.12.2015  

Mrs.Guramritpal Kaur wife of Sh.Amanjeet Singh, resident 334, Green Avenue, Amritsar. (aged 40 years)

Complainant

Versus

1. Siya Ram Enterprises, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ Principle Officer.
2. Samsung Service Centre, Chowk Farid, Amritsar through its proprietor/ partner/ Principle Officer.
3. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, A-25, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Estate, New Delhi-110044, through its Chairman/ MG/ Director/ Principal Officer.    

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2: Exparte

              For the Opposite Party No.3: Smt.Preeti Mahajan, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Mrs.Guramritpal Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased a refrigerator from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.3, vide Invoice No. 410 dated 18.6.2014 for Rs.42,500/- having warranty of 5 years. Complainant alleges that said refrigerator was having inherent/ manufacturing defect from the very first day of its purchase and was not giving the cooling and making loud noises besides the body of the refrigerator is getting cracked from various positions and water seepage and the complaints to the said effect were made to the Opposite Party No.3 on its toll free number and the Opposite Party No.2 tried to rectify the body defects and other defects, but to no avail. Lastly, the complainant made complaint on 10.5.2015 having complaint No. 8465592560 which is still pending with the Opposite Parties. Said act of the Opposite Parties, in not rectifying the defect in the refrigerator, is an act of deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to rectify the defects in the refrigerator of the complainant and in case the defects are not repairable, then replace the refrigerator with new one or in alternative refund Rs.42,500/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 despite service, so Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte by this Forum.
3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the refrigerator in question is perfectly working and there is no such problem of crack or seepage as alleged in the complaint. The last complaint was lodged by the complainant on 10.5.2015 with regard to cracks and water seepage problem. The service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and thoroughly checked the refrigerator and no defect was found, all the para meters were within normal range and complainant was satisfied with the performance of the refrigerator in question. The complainant lodged the first complaint on 23.7.2014 and service engineer called the complainant to seek appointment, but the complainant told that she was busy and she would call back later. But no call was received from the customer. Then again the service engineer called on 28.7.2014, but again the complainant told that she was  busy and would call back later, but again  no call received back from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again lodged complaint on 10.5.2015, the service engineer visited the complainant’s premises and checked the refrigerator and no defect was found with regard to the working of refrigerator. The complainant as and when lodged complaint with the answering Opposite Party regarding the refrigerator in question, the same was duly attended and now she has filed the present complaint with ulterior motives.  Moreover, under the warranty, the answering Opposite Party is only liable to repair or replace only the defective parts of the product in question. The complainant has failed to prove on record that refrigerator in question can not be repaired, thus she is not entitled for replacement or refund of price.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sunil Bhargav, General manager Ex.OP3/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant purchased a refrigerator from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.3, vide Invoice No. 410 dated 18.6.2014 (Ex.C2) for Rs.42,500/-. Complainant alleges that said refrigerator was having inherent/ manufacturing defect and it was not giving the cooling and making loud noises besides the body of the refrigerator is getting cracked from various positions and there was water seepage. The complainant lodged complaints to Opposite Party No.3  on its toll free number and the Opposite Party No.2-authorized service centre, tried to rectify the defects, but they could not succeed. The complainant made last complaint  to Opposite Party in this regard on 10.5.2015 having complaint No. 8465592560, which is still pending with the Opposite Parties. The complainant also made many other complaints with Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 in this regard, but in vain. Said refrigerator is lying idle due to the aforesaid defects which could not be removed by Opposite Parties.  Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.3 qua the complainant.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that there is no problem in the refrigerator of the complainant. Opposite Party No.3 admitted that complainant lodged complaints regarding the functioning of the refrigerator with the Opposite Parties and the last complaint was lodged by the complainant on 10.5.2015 with regard to cracks in the body of the refrigerator and water seepage problem. Service Engineer of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant and thoroughly checked the refrigerator and found no defect in the refrigerator. All the parameters were within normal range and the complainant was satisfied with the performance of the refrigerator. Opposite Party further admitted that the complainant lodged first complaint on 23.7.2014. Service Engineer of the Opposite Party called the complainant to seek appointment, but the complainant was busy. Again Service Engineer of the Opposite Party called the complainant on 28.7.2014, but again the complainant was busy. No call was received back from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint on 10.5.2015 and the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that the refrigerator was working in proper condition. The complainant as and when lodged the complaints with Opposite Party regarding any defect in the refrigerator in question, the same were duly attended. Opposite Party No.3 further submitted that in the absence of any expert evidence, the claim of the complainant can not be allowed. The complainant has not filed any technical expert report. Opposite Party, however, admitted that the refrigerator is within one year warranty with additional warranty of 4 years for compressor only. The complainant has failed to prove on record that the refrigerator in question can not be repaired, as such he is not entitled for replacement or refund of the price of the refrigerator. Opposite Party No.3 is only liable to repair or replace the defective parts of the refrigerator in question.            Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant  purchased a refrigerator from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.3, vide Invoice No. 410 dated 18.6.2014 Ex.C2, for Rs.42,500/-. Complainant  submitted that said refrigerator was not giving the proper cooling and making loud noises besides the body of the refrigerator is getting cracked from various positions and there was water seepage. Opposite Party No.3 has admitted that complainant lodged first complaint on 23.7.2014 regarding the defects in the refrigerator in question  i.e. after about one month from the date of  its purchase, as per the admission of Opposite Party No.3 in para No.3 of Preliminary Objections in their written version, but no service engineer went to the premises of the complainant to check the refrigerator and rectify the defects, if any, in the refrigerator in question. Opposite Party No.3 has also admitted that last complaint was received from the complainant on 10.5.2015 as per admission in para No.1 of the Preliminary Objection of written version of Opposite Party No.3, then  service engineer visited the premises of the complainant and checked the refrigerator and submitted that he found no defect in the refrigerator and all the parameters were within normal range. But there is no such certificate has been produced by Opposite Party No.3 nor the Opposite Party No.3 filed the affidavit of that service engineer. Whereas the complainant has lodged complaint with Opposite Party vide job sheet dated 1.5.2015, copy of which is Ex.C3. Service Engineer of the Opposite Party checked the refrigerator of the complainant in which the Opposite Party has admitted that there were cracks in the body of refrigerator of the complainant and the complainant has given specific note on this job sheet that she was not satisfied with the repair. The complainant has also produced on record photographs showing cracks in the body of  said refrigerator, which are attached with this job sheet Ex.C3. The complainant has also lodged complaints regarding seepage of water from the refrigerator, but the Opposite Party is  totally silent about the cracks in the body of refrigerator as well as seepage of water from the refrigerator. Even the complainant was not satisfied with the repair done by the Opposite Party. All this shows that the refrigerator of the complainant is beyond repairs and the Opposite Parties have failed to rectify the defects in the refrigerator of the complainant properly and make it fully functional. Even the body of the refrigerator has internal cracks and there is seepage of water from the refrigerator.
10. Resultantly, we hold that the refrigerator in question has inherent defects which are not repairable. As such, Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 are liable to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of same make and model.
11. Consequently, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the refrigerator of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in alternative to  refund the amount of refrigerator i.e. Rs.42,500/- to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of refrigerator, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Parties  NO.2 and  3 are also liable to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 01.12.2015.                                                            (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                      President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                    Member                         Member