Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/84/2014

Pasala Suman Kalyan Son of Chakarapani Aged about 38 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Venkata Ramana Agencies, Rep by its Proprietor, - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Abdulsamath

20 Jan 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing     :26-11-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:20-01-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the 20^th  day of  January, 2016

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No. 84/2014

1.	Pasala Suman Kalyan, S/o.Chakrapani, Aged about 38 years,
2.	Tada Shasheel Kumar, S/o.Jayaram, Aged about 36 years,   Both are residing at D.No.5-288, Kasareddypalem, Near Venkateswara Temple, Opposite to Gurukula Patasala, Sullurpet-524121, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.                                                                               ..… Complainants

                                                                                                                       

                                                                           Vs.

1.	Sri Venkta Ramana Agencies, Represented by it’s Proprietor, 9/179, Katcheri Street, Sullurupet-524121, SPSR Nellore District.
2.	Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Represented by it’s Managing Director, Corporate Office:6th, 7th & 8th floors, ICFI Tower, 61 Nehru Place, New Delhi-400059.
3.	Kalyan Enterprises, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Authorised Service Centre for Samsung Refrigerators, 16/3/811 (Old), 6/7/181 (New), Rammurthy Nagar, Nellore-524 003.                                                                         ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 05-01-2016 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Sk. Abdul Samath, advocate for the complainant and opposite party No.1 called absent and Sri Md. Rahimkhan,  advocate for the opposite parties 2 and 3  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

          This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  prays to direct the opposite parties to replace the  refrigerator with a new one or to refund its cost of Rs.12,900/- with interest at 12%  from the date of purchase till realization, Rs.7,400/- towards the charges collected  from the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from 15-03-2014 till realization, Rs.50,000/- towards damages, costs  and such others further reliefs.

 

2.         The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Samsung Double Door Refrigerator having model no RT24XBDS for a sum of Rs.12,900/- under bill No.141 dated 22-10-2009 from 1^st opposite party with a warranty of five years and extended warranty for additional three years(totally  8 years as a special offer). Believing the promises and assurances of opposite parties, the complainant along with his brother-in-law T.Shasheel Kumar approached the opposite parties and purchased the above said refrigerator. While so on 10-03-2014, the said refrigerator was affected with cooling problem, the complainant gave a complaint to the third opposite party and the technician concerned visited the first complainant house and found that there was defect in the compressor and that defect was rectified with gas filling  and charged Rs.1,550/-. But two days after, the same problem was repeated and the first complainant approached the third opposite party requesting to rectify the problem. Inspite of repeated approaches and telephone calls, they did not respond properly .The  complainant sent the refrigerator to the service station(3^rd opposite party) by paying Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges and said problem was rectified with an assurance that the problems will not arise in future. Again, the complainant informed the same problem to the technicians and on 23-07-2014, the technicians replaced PCB. Even though, the PCB was replaced, the problem could not be solved. The complainants complained to the CEO of 2^nd opposite party through mails and letters i.e on 05-08-2014,13-08-2014,   22-08-2014 and 25-8-2014 about the defects but after several requests, the service engineer replaced the compressor thrice to rectify the problem. Even though the compressor was replaced, the defects in the refrigerator was not cured. Finally on the advice of the opposite parties, he purchased one stabilizer and installed the same. Though there is no necessity to purchase the stabilizer as assured at the time of purchase. Even after stabilizer  placed, the problems arose frequently. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to replace new refrigerator or to refund the price amount alongwith damages and collected charges  and costs for their gross negligence, deficiency in service and inaction. Hence the complaint

 

3.         The first opposite party called absent, no representation on it’s behalf.

 

4.         The second and third opposite parties filed written version denying all the material allegations except that of admitted certain facts. The opposite parties raised an objection that the complainants have to establish as to who had purchased Double Door Refrigerator on 22-10-2009 from the opposite parties and has to make a statement as to who is the proper party to file the instant complaint for establishing the case.

 

5.         The opposite parties contented that according to the complaint refrigerator was purchased by him on 22-10-2009 and the same is working in a good condition till           09-03-2014.  On receipt of the complaint dated 09-03-2014 as the refrigerator was under warranty ,the compressor was replaced and gas charging done on chargeable basis of Rs.1,550/-.  Even though compressor worth Rs.6,000/- replaced on free of cost. the complainant represented again on 22-03-2014 and on 11-04-2014 about the defects but noticed that no defect was observed .When the complainant again alleged on 07-06-2014 about the problem, the set was attended with replacement of compressor and gas charging done. Once again the complainant alleged the same problem .The main PCB was replaced on chargeable basis. Again on 13-08-2014 and 22-08-2014 ,the complainant lodged a complaint about the defects, the opposite parties replaced the compressor twice on free of cost. Thus the compressor was replaced thrice by the opposite party and the unit is now working in good condition and functioning properly. Further, the opposite parties contented that the defects caused only due to lot of power cuts and low voltage problem in the town of Nellore. On the advice of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased voltage stabilizer to protect his refrigerator. Thereafter there is no complaint and no manufacturing defect in the respective unit. Since the unit is working properly there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence the complaint may be dismissed against the opposite parties.

 

6.         Now the points for determination would be:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service in not replacing the new refrigerator with a new one or refund the cost of Rs.12,900/- with interest, if so, whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for?

 

2. To what relief

            7.        To substantiate the complainant allegations ,the complainant filed evidence on affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex A1 to A17 documents. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit as RW1 and no exhibits marked on their side.

 

 

8.         POINT No.1:  The opposite parties placed an objection on the points that complainants have to establish as to who had purchased the Double Door Refrigerator on 22-10-2009 from the opposite parties and who is the proper party to file this complaint. As seen from the records, it is disclosed that the 1^st complainant namely Pasala Suman Kalyan purchased the said refrigerator on 22-10-2009 and cash bill no 141,                        dated 22-10-2009 and the cash bill issued by Sri Venkata Ramana Agencies Katcheri Street, Sullurpet along with warranty card in the name of P.Suman Kalyan. Therefore, the first complainant is the proper party to file this complaint and 2^nd complainant is his brother-in-law to assist him in the transactions. As such there is no ambiguity in this case and the objections raised by the opposite parties are not sustained.

 

            9.         A close scrutiny of the record discloses that the complainant purchased the Double  Door Refrigerator on 22-10-2009 from the 1^st opposite party (model no.RT24XBDS) for a  sum of  Rs.12,900/- vide bill No 141, dated 22-10-2009 and ever since the purchase of said unit the functioning of compressor and cooling effect is not working. It is not disputed that the compressor is not working properly and consequent on that cooling effect also affected.

 

            10.       It is further noticed that during the period of warranty, when the complainant complained about the defect of refrigerator on 9-3-2014 the opposite parties attended and replaced the compressor and gas charging also done on chargeable basis of Rs.1,550/-. Again on 07-06-2014, the opposite parties attended on complaint given by the complainant, rectified the problem by replacing the compressor and gas charging done on free of cost. Main PCB was also replaced on chargeable basis. Further noticed that when the complainant complained on 22-08-2014 about the same defect the opposite parties replaced another compressor on free of cost. Thus the opposite parties replaced the compressors on the complaint made by the complainant. Thus, it is pertinent to mention here as is evident from the statements on both sides, the said unit repairs was done thrice i.e, within a short period of time. Further the complainant also established about the defects occurred through his documentary proof viz, Ex A1 to A17 and it is also admitted by the opposite parties and inspite of attended by them during the warranty period the defects were not rectified. Further the refrigerator is giving lot of trouble within a warranty period and the opposite parties failed to cure it permanently which amounts  to inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant made several representations through the letters Ex A8 to A14 about the supply of defective refrigerator, they did not respond to replace the new refrigerator or to refund the amount of price. Long silence and inaction in replacing the defective refrigerator would certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Unscrupulous traders after selling the product does not perform its part of obligation should not be spared. The purpose of Consumer Protection Act is to help consumers when they suffer from deficiency in service by the service providers. Further the service providers should not escape from their liability by throwing blame on the complainant on flimsy grounds. In the instant case, the opposite parties thrown the blame on the complainant that he failed to place voltage stabilizer to protect the refrigerator from avoiding voltage problems. Infact , the refrigerator is having in-built system of voltage stabililzer for protecting low and high voltage problems and there is no need to purchase stabilizer as the unit is “Stabilizer Free Operation”.

 

            11.       Generally, a common man used to  purchase refrigerator and other goods from  a shop by expecting the purpose, for which the goods are purchased will serve the fulfillment of their desires. If there is any defect in the said goods, the very purpose of purchase will be defeated and the customer will be put to  great hardship.  In such  a situation, in the instant case, the opposite parties 1 to 3 cannot escape from their liability without rectifying the problem arose in the refrigerator.  When once the refrigerator is received from the manufacturing company, it is  bounden duty of the opposite parties  to see that the said refrigerator is in good and proper working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant at the time of selling the refrigerator.  Hence, the opposite parties  1 to 3 are  jointly  and severally liable replace the new refrigerator in place of defective  refrigerator.  Hence, the complainant placed  plausible evidence for establishing his case.

 

            12.       It is suffice to say that opposite parties except placing of self serving statements on the report of their mechanics did not place any positive proof of acknowledgment of compliance from the complainant. Further no expert evidence placed in support of their contention contrary to the evidence placed by the complainant for which the complainant cannot be penalized. The opposite parties are bound to replace new refrigerator in place of defective refrigerator  since they failed their attempts in rectifying the problems.  Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties are proved. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

 

13.       POINT NO.2:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 are  jointly and severally liable to replace new refrigerator in place of defective refrigerator to the complainant and also pay  compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) besides the costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The complainant is directed to handover the defective refrigerator to the opposite parties soon after receipt of new refrigerator from  them  as ordered.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  20^th day of  January, 2016.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

07-10-2015

Sri Pasala Suman Kalyan, S/o.Chakrapani,  Sullurpet-524121, S.P.S.R. Nellore District  (Chief Examination filed)

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

24-08-2015

Sri D. Ashok Kumar, Nellore.   (Evidence Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Phtocopy of  Samsung Refrigerator extended Warranty for 6th, 7th and 8th years in favour of  1st complainant issued by the opposite parties, date of purchase is 22-10-2009.
Ex.A2  -	22-10-2007	Photocopy of Customer details cum Warranty Card in favour of 1st complainant.
Ex.A3  -	22-10-2009	Photocopy of Bill No.141 for Rs.12,900/- in favour of complainants issued by the  opposite party No.1
Ex.A4  -	15-03-2014	Photocopy of Receipt No.1029 for Rs.1550/- in favour of 1st complainant issued by the opposite party No.3.
Ex.A5  -	02-07-2014	Photocopy of Receipt No.4578 for Rs.950/- in favour of 2nd  complainant issued by the opposite party No.3.
Ex.A6  -	23-01-2014	Photocopy of Receipt No.4681 for Rs.1200/- in favour of 1st complainant issued by the opposite party No.3.
Ex.A7  -	02-08-2014	Photocopy of  cash bill No.3003  for Rs.1,200/- in favour of 2nd complainant issued by the Ramdev Audio Centre, Sullurpet-524 121 .
Ex.A8  -	-	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Chief Executive, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Gurgaon.
Ex.A9  -	-	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Mr.Saurabh Kumar Gupta, Senior Executive-Customer Experience,  Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
Ex.A10  -	22-08-2014	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Senior Executive-Customer Experience,  Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
Ex.A11  -	25-08-2014	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Ms./Mrs.Priya Verma, Senior Executive-Customer Experience,  Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
Ex.A12  -	10-09-2014	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Mr.Saurabh Kumar Gupta, Senior Executive-Customer Experience,  Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
Ex.A13  -	12-09-2014	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Mr.Saurabh Kumar Gupta, Senior Executive-Customer Experience,  Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
Ex.A14  -	22-09-2014	Photocopy of letter from 2nd complainant to the Chief Executive Officer, Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.
Ex.A15-	-	Seven photos showing damaged fridge details.
Ex.A16  -	-	Three photos showing without damaging fridge details.
Ex.A17 -	15-06-2014	Photo copy of Way bill No.85656 in favour of 2nd complainant issued by the Kranthi road Transport Private Limited.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

 

                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                      Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

Copies to:

1.	Sri Sk. Abdul Samath, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri Venkta Ramana Agencies, Represented by it’s Proprietor, 9/179, Katcheri Street, Sullurupet-524121, SPSR Nellore District.
3.	Sri Md. Rahimkhan, Advocate,  Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: