Date of filing: 04.06.2012.

Date of disposal: 08.11.2012.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President

Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member

Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member

Thursday, the 08th day of November, 2012

C.C.No.94 of 2012

Between:

Consumer Guidance Society Representing: A. Bala Koteswara Rao, R/o 41-1-7/2, Gowthami Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

. … Complainant.

And

1. SRR E CITY, Rep: by its Authorized Signatory, 29-13-125, Sai Sivapuri Complex, Museum Road, Vijayawada – 02.

2. Harish Enterprises, Rep: by its Proprietor, D.No.40-15-4/11, Nandamuri Street, Vijayawada – 10.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., Rep: by its Managing Director, 602, Vishal Bhavan, 95, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

. … Opposite Parties.

This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 29.10.2012, in the presence Consumer Guidance Society appeared for complainant; opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent, Sri Bhaskar Poluri, advocate for opposite part no.3 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O R D E R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N.Tripura Sundari)

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:

The complainant purchased a Samsung RETRT29CDUXI/XTL model refrigerator on 27.10.11 for a consideration of Rs.18,800/- from the 1st opposite party. But after two months of its purchase the complainant noticed that a swarm of ants emanating from the interior of the refrigerator over a period of time spanning over one month owing to latent and patent defects in the refrigerator. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and handed over the refrigerator to the opposite parties on 9.2.2012. Subsequently the complainant made several requests to the opposite parties to replace the defective refrigerator with a defective free one; but the opposite parties refused to do so. Further the complainant noticed the ugly looking scratches over the outer surface of the refrigerator consequent upon the repairs taken by the 2nd opposite party resulting in the outer surface of the refrigerator became pale and the complainant refused to take delivery of the alleged repaired refrigerator back to his home. In the above circumstances the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective refrigerator with a defective free one. The opposite parties received the said notice and kept quiet, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.18,800/- or in the alternative to replace the defective refrigerator with a defective fee one of the same brand, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to pay costs.

2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and the 3rd opposite party filed his version. The version of the 3rd opposite party is in brief: The 3rd opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the Samsung products are an outcome of a strong in house research and development, supported by world class manufacturing facilities. The complainant says that he has noticed a swarm of ants emanating from the interior of refrigerator and claims the same as due to the latent and patent defects. The ants inside the refrigerator can be attributed only to the complainant as he has not stated the kind of location and surroundings of the refrigerator. The contention that the delivery of the defective refrigerator was taken belatedly for attending to repairs on 9.2.2012 is not correct as the complaint was lodged on 9.2.2012 and the same was attended on 10.2.2012 as could be seen from the service request. The ants detected are not from the interior of the refrigerator but in the compressor of the refrigerator which is an external part and therefore the reason for the ants could be the location of the refrigerator. Further there is a problem with door handle and the same was replaced. The complainant being satisfied with the service rendered by this opposite party, came to the service center to take back the set, but developed different ideas and went away without taking the fridge. The warranty card clearly indicates that ‘defects caused by house hold pets, rats, cockroaches or any other animals or insets’, the warranty is not applicable. When the complainant did not take back the refrigerator, a letter dated 23.2.2012 was sent to him asking to collect the refrigerator, but the complainant did not respond for the same and it is lying with the service centre in good working condition. The contention with regard to the scratches over the outer surface of the refrigerator is not correct as the complainant made a categorical endorsement that he is satisfied with the repairs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 and on behalf of the 3rd opposite party Sri M. Suryanarayana, the branch manager gave his affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

4. Heard and perused.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

I) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oppositeparties in not replacing the defective refrigerator with new one or to refund the cost of the refrigerator? Or not?

II) If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?

III) To what relief the complainant is entitled?

Points 1 and 2:

6. On perusing the material on hand it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased refrigerator from 1st opposite party under Ex.A1 dated 27.10.2011 for an amount of Rs.18,800/-. The complainant says that after two months of its purchase, the complainant noticed that a swarm of ants emanating from the interior of the refrigerator over a period of spanning over one month owing to latent and patent defects in the refrigerator. The complainant informed the same to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and handed over the refrigerator to the opposite parties on 9.2.2012 under Ex.A2. He made several requests to the opposite parties to replace the defective refrigerator with defective free one. But they refused to do so. Further he noticed the ugly looking scratches over the outer surface of the refrigerator consequent upon the repairs taken by the 2nd opposite party resulting in the outer surface of the refrigerator became pale and he refused to take delivery of the same. In the above circumstances he got issued a legal notice under Ex.A3 dated 2.3.2012 through his advocate demanding the opposite parties to replace the defective refrigerator with defective free one. The opposite parties received the said notice and kept quiet.

7. The opposite parties 1 and 2 called absent and the 3rd opposite party filed his version and says that the Samsung products are an outcome a strong in house research and development, supported by world class manufacturing facilities. As said by the complainant the ants inside the refrigerator can be attributed only to the complainant as he has not stated the kind of location and surroundings of the refrigerator. The complainant lodged a complaint on 9.2.2012 and the same was attended on 10.2.2012 as per Ex.B2. The ants were not seen from the interiors of the refrigerator but in the compressor of the refrigerator which is an external part. Further there is a problem with door handle and the same was replaced. The complainant satisfied with the service rendered by the opposite parties. But developed different ideas and went away refusing to take back the fridge. The warranty card Ex.B1 clearly indicates that defects cause by house hold pets, rats, cockroaches or any other animals or insets’ the warranty is not applicable. When the complainant did not take back the refrigerator, a letter under Ex.B2 dated 23.2.2012 was sent to take back the refrigerator. But the complainant did not respond for the same and it is lying with the service centre with good condition. The contention of the complainant with regard to the scratches over the outer surface of the refrigerator is not correct as the complainant made an endorsement on Ex.B2 that he is satisfied with the repairs.

8. On hearing both the parties and examining the documents we the Forum came to conclusion that after purchasing of the refrigerator by the complainant he noticed that some ants are coming from inside of the refrigerator and gave complainant the opposite parties and handed over the refrigerator to the opposite parties to rectify the defects. The opposite parties rectified the defect of ants coming from inside and also replaced the door handle with new one. We are of opinion that ants cannot come from inside of the refrigerator. There may be ants in outside surroundings of the refrigerator. No scratches would form while replacing door handle or cleaning the compressor. Any how the complainant says that there are some scratches on outer surface of the refrigerator. The opposite parties have to hand over the fridge to the complainant without scratches on outer surface of the fridge as the complainant purchased the fridge only on 27.10.2011. So the complainant is entitled to get the fridge without scratches.

9. In the result the complaint is allowed partly and the opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to hand over the refrigerator to the complainant without any scratches on outer surface of the refrigerator and to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rests of the claims of the complainant are rejected. Complaint against 1st opposite party is dismissed without costs. Type written by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 08th day of November, 2012.

PRESIDENT                                                                                   MEMBER                                                       MEMBER

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant: -None-                                                                     For the opposite party: -None-

Documents marked

On behalf of the complainant:

Ex.A1 Original copy of warranty card.

Ex.A2 09.02.2012 Photocopy of service bill

Ex.A3 02.03.2012 Original copy of legal got issued by complainant to Ops.

On behalf of the opposite parties:

Ex.B1 Photocopy of warranty card.

Ex.B2 09.02.2012 Photocopy of service bills.

Ex.B3 23.02.2012 Photocopy of letter issued by OP.2 to the complainant.

PRESIDENT