IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 23rd day of September, 2021
Filed on 23.01.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.23/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Rajendra Prasad, 1. Sri. Harsha Vardhan.N
Perumana, Pollethai.P.O Partner & Senior. Executive
Alappuzha Customer Experience
(Adv. Kalavoor Vijayakumar) Sam Sung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd
20th Floor, Two Horizon Centre
Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5
Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana
(Adv.P.S.Anaghan )
2. The Dealer, Samsung India
Electroncis Pvt. Ltd.
Nandilath G. Mart, Alappuzha
(Adv. Azeem Mohammed)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainant had purchased a refrigerator Samsung bearing model No.RS21HUTPNI from the 2nd opposite party’s shop at Nandilath G Mart, Alappuzha on 7/12/2013, valued at Rs. 73,499/-. Before the expiry of its warranty period the same was turned defective and becomes absolutely useless. On 22/11/2019 the matter was informed the 1st and 2nd opposite party by the complainant at the time when it was not in a working condition. Eventhough it was repaired several times the defect could not cured by the service man of the 1st opposite party, the manufacturer of the product. The complainant purchased the valuable product for a long time use and not as a onetime used paper plates. While considering the purchase price, duration and money spent for maintenance the early demise of the product is only due to the inferior quality of materials used for its manufacturer. In connection with the repair of the product the opposite parties did not maintained the nature and manner of performance on their part. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties the complainant demands refund of the price of the product since it was beyond repair according to the 1st opposite party’s technician.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The main contention of 1st opposite party is that according to them there is no manufacturing defect on the refrigerator purchased by the complainant, otherwise it should be proved by the complainant with expert evidence. The 1st opposite party had provided proper services to the complainant when he had lodged complaint regarding the refrigerator. The complainant had raised a complaint firstly on 26/11/2018 for overheating and no cooling issues, the service engineer inspected the refrigerator and replaced the PCB of unit on chargeable basis since the unit was out of warranty. Thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint dated 19/11/2019, there the service centre thoroughly diagnosed the unit and observed that the said unit was non repairable due to internal condenser leakage. On 9/12/2019 also diagnosed the same and the service centre informed the same to the complainant that the said unit was non repairable and was out of depreciation policy. All the communications of the complainant with the 1st opposite party was handled as per company rules and regulations and the complainant was informed the warranty terms and conditions in detail and hence anything contrary is denied and disputed. The 1st opposite party also offered Rs.5000/- as refund amount to the complainant since the product was out of warranty period and the said product was unrepairable. But the offer was denied the complainant. This opposite party shall not be liable to pay compensations as there was no manufacturing defect found in the said refrigerator. Hence the complainant may be dismissed.
3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2nd opposite party admitted the purchase of the disputed refrigerator by the complainant from 2nd opposite party and their dealership of product of 1st opposite party. The said refrigerator is having warranty only for 1 year and the compressor having a warranty of 10 years from the date of purchase. The matter regarding the complaint of the refrigerator was registered with 1st opposite party vide No.4294989732 on 19/11/2019, but it mentioned the complainant as 22/11/2019. The refrigerator was defect free and was not having any manufacturing defects. This opposite party had done his duty bound to inform the 1st opposite party, manufacturer with regarding the defects of the refrigerator informed by the complainant with much vigilant and care and had given all sorts of help to the complainant to sort out his grievance. The complaint filed by suppressing certain material facts. The complainant and family are residing out of India. They used to come and use the refrigerator only for a month or two in a year. The other time the refrigerator kept either in off position or used in continuously. In both situations the refrigerator gets damaged. Information gathered from the service centre reveals that the circuit board of the refrigerator seen destroyed by ants and the interior coils and pipes were seen burst due to the excess cooling. On enquiry it is revealed that it was due to non usage of the refrigerator for long time either in off or on positions. Therefore there is no deficiency in service or dereliction of duty from the side of this opposite party.
4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to refund the purchase price of the refrigerator as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation?
4. Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1, PW2 and Ext.A1 to A4 (Ext.A1 Subject to Objection) from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 series, Ext.B2 series and Ext.B3 from the side of opposite parties. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1 to 3:-
PW1, is the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A4 in which Ext. A1 marked as subject to objection. On the side of complainant one witness also examined as PW2 who is Senior Instructor of Government ITI, Vayalar.
7. RW1 is the Service Technician of 1st opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1series , B2 series and B3.
8. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung refrigerator on 7/12/2013 from 2nd opposite party as per Ext.A1, copy of retail invoice. Though the opposite parties counsel objected the marking of the Ext.A1 they admitted the purchase price of the said refrigerator in the version as well as advancing their arguments. The refrigerator was manufactured by 1st opposite party M/s Samsung Company.
9. According to the complainant before the expiry of the warranty period of the said refrigerator the same was turned defective and becomes absolutely useless. The complainant had informed the matter to the opposite parties on 22/11/2019. Thereafter the service technicians of the 1st opposite party inspected the defected refrigerator and repaired on several times. But they could not cure the defects of the refrigerator. According to the complainant he had purchased such a valuable product for a long time use and not as a onetime used paper plate. Complainant also alleged the inferior quality of materials used for its manufacture, while considering the purchase price and its duration of lifetime. Considering the warranty period PW1 produced Ext.A2 which shown the warranty of 10 years. Per contra the case advanced by 1st opposite party is that the warranty period for the said product is only 1 year(12months) as per Ext.B3. In the discussion of the said fact, on perusal of Ext.A2 and Ext.B3 we can understand that the refrigerator in question is having warranty period of 12 months(1 year) and 10 year warranty is the parts warranty for its Digital Inverter Compressor. It was also noticed in Ext.A2 which is according to PW1 the warranty details of the refrigerator. In this connection it is also pertinent to note that the complainant reported a defect pertaining to the refrigerator was after using the same for a period of almost 6 years from its purchase. Further it was contented by the 2nd opposite party that for a continuous off and on position of the refrigerator there might have occurred defect in the product. In this occasion it is pertinent to note that whether the house in which the refrigerator installed was occupied or not?
10. Admittedly PW1 was enter in box for adducing evidence since the complainant was residing abroad and PW1 also deposed that the complainant stayed only 3 or 4 times in a year at here. But the Commission is not expert to find a conclusion in this technical issue without an expert opinion. Eventhough PW2 is an expert having technical knowhow the credibility of his deposition was challenged by the opposite parties since the complainant is one of the relatives of his brother and he had inspected the disputed refrigerator on request of his brother. Moreover on evaluation of his deposition there was no certainty in conclusion of every answer, his answer was only a possibility to be happened the defects. PW2 also admitted that he did not issue notice to 2nd opposite party intimating the inspection of the refrigerator in question. During cross examination of counsel for 1st opposite party the PW2 deposed that there was none residing in the house of complainant. In short nothing was brought into evidence by the examination of PW2 to prove the case of the complainant. Moreover there was no evidence to prove the manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint.
11. The matter is well settled by various judicial pronouncements. It was held in
M.J.Abraham vs. Angel Agencies and others (2000 CPJ 544) that “for replacement of a product the defect must be manufacturing defect and for proving manufacturing defects expert opinion is essential”.
12. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Classic Automobiles Vs. LilaNand Mishra and Another (2010 CPJ 235) (NCJ). It was held that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect is on the complainant and further it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defect.
13. In this case the complainant has not taken any steps to bring an expert opinion about the manufacturing defect of the disputed refrigerator. Hence applying the principles laid down in the decisions stated above it is pellucid that complainant is not entitled for any relief. In the said circumstances we found no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. These points are found accordingly.
14. Point No.4:-
In the result, complaint stands dismissed. Bothe parties shall bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 23rd day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Raveendran .A.K(Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant)
PW2 - Santhoshkumar T.B(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Retail Invoice dtd. 7/12/2013
Ext.A2 - Photo copy of Warranty
Ext.A3 - E-mail communications
Ext.A4 - E-mail communication.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Aneesh Gregory (Opposite party)
Ext.B1series - Copy of Customer Service Record Card
Ext.B2series - Copy of Letter dtd.21/8/2019
Ext.B3 - Copy of warranty terms and conditions
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
