BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 269/2017     Filed on 10.07.2017

ORDER DATED: 30.04.2018

Complainant:

Opposite parties:

(by Adv. Vasudev A.)

This C.C having been heard on 10.04.2018, the Forum on 30.04.2018  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

Case of the complainant is as follows.  A Samsung Refrigerator (Model – RT 42K5068GL) was purchased from the dealer Nandilath G-Mart, Kesavadasapuram, Trivandrum on 13.09.2016.  The fridge worked well for about 6¹/₂ months.  After that there was no adequate cooling in the fridge as a result food items started getting spoiled after 2 or 3 days.  Hence on 09.05.2017 we informed the matter to the dealer (Nandilath G-Mart) who have sent technicians from Smart Electronics, Sreekanteswaram, Trivandrum to check the fridge.  The service people changed the sensor of the fridge.  But as this has not improved the cooling another sensor was fitted after a few days.  As the cooling has not still improved they have changed the circuit boards after a delay of about two weeks.  Still the cooling has not improved in the fridge.   We informed the matter to the Samsung Co. Delhi by e-mail on 08.06.2017 and the company replied that they are looking at the matter with the service people, vide their e-mail dated 09.06.2017.  Finally the service centre has taken the fridge from their house to their workshop for repairing on 20.06.2017.  The complainants both are senior citizens and they were made to suffer from 1^st week of May 2017 as they are unable to use the fridge.  Our kitchen functioning has gone out of order.  As they have to cook on a daily basis, which is too inconvenient and tiresome for them, and many times food items which cannot be consumed on the same day has to be discarded which adds up the food expenditure.  Also they are not able to keep our medicines like NIKORAN-5 and insulin in the fridge.  No the problem has entered the 3^rd month with the fridge remaining unrepaired by the Samsung Company or their authorised Service centre.  The fridge is in the warranty period of one year from 13.09.2016.  Now we are convinced that the fridge sold to us was having a major defect, which could not be rectified even after two months, by the manufacturer and now they are just playing for time, so that the warranty period expires. 

The complainant had purchased Samsung refrigerator on 13.09.2016 from 2^nd opposite party, Model No. RT 42K5068GL at a consideration price of Rs.49,499/-.  As per the complainant the said refrigerator became out of order on 09.05.2017 as the said refrigerator faced low cooling effect and was not functioning while working.  That the complainant also alleged that the refrigerator became inoperative but has suppressed the fact that the answering opposite party was always ready to replace the refrigerator which the complainant denied and was demanding refund.  That the complainant had also lodged a complaint at 1^st opposite party’s service centre and proper service was provided to the complainant as the service engineer visited the complainant’s house to rectify the defects in the said refrigerator and he replaced the sensor from the unit.  That the complainant after a few days again registered a complaint and an engineer visited again he attended the complaint properly.  That on 20.06.2017 the service centre took the refrigerator to their workshop for repairing and communicated the intention to replace the refrigerator by a new one as a goodwill gesture.  The service centre also informed the complainant that there were no manufacturing defects in the said refrigerator and defects which happened have occurred due to physical damages and failure to follow the usage guidelines.  But still out of goodwill the company was ready to replace the refrigerator.  It may also be mentioned here that the complainant himself admitted that the refrigerator did not had any issues in the first 6¹/₂ months after purchase which only further proves the fact that there were no manufacturing defects in the refrigerator.    The 1^st opposite party here is willing to still provide a replacement of the refrigerator with a same model one.  It was further stated that there was thus neither any deficiency n rendering service on the part 1^st opposite party nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.

Before adducing evidence both parties entered into a compromise as follows.  Opposite parties are ready to pay Rs.44,550/- i.e. 90% of the invoice amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.  Complainant readily agreed to this condition.  In default 1^st opposite party undertakes to pay 9% interest of the amount is not paid within this period.

          In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay the complainant Rs.44,550/- to the complainant within a month of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest from the date of default, till the date of realisation.   No order on cost and compensation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of April, 2018.

SL