BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 99/2011 Filed on 25.03.2011

Dated : 15.07.2011

Complainant :

Ashok K. Nair, T.C 15/28-1, “KRISHNA”(EGRA-13), Rugmini Amma Lane, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. CEO, Samsung India Electronics Ltd., 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th Floor, Tower-C, Vipultech Square, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122 002.

    

2. Samsung Digit All Plaza (QRS Retail Ltd.), Opp: SMV School, M.G. Road, Trivandrum-695 001.

This O.P having been heard on 18.06.2011, the Forum on 15.07.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant had purchased a Samsung Refrigerator model No. RT45MAIS vide Bill No. dated 17.10.2009 from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant states that during the warranty period itself, i.e; on 21.04.2010, the refrigerator became noisy and a complaint was registered in the website of Samsung. The service engineer deputed, inspected the refrigerator on 22.04.2010, and said that the Timer was defective and replaced the same. But the next day itself the refrigerator stopped the functioning altogether. A complaint was once again registered and the service engineer who attended the complaint, stated that it was the complaint of the Timer and made some adjustments in the Timer. Six months after the above complaint on 18.11.2010 the replaced Timer became noisy i.e; immediately one month after the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant had registered a complaint and the Samsung Service technician who attended the complaint said that the Timer is defective and had to be replaced once again. The complainant alleges that the Timer replaced during the warranty period was substandard and of poor quality. The complainant requested several times to the opposite parties to replace the said Timer free of any charges. But the opposite parties were not ready to replace the same. Hence this complaint.

In this case opposite parties remained ex-parte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for ?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant has purchased the refrigerator on 17.10.2009 from the 2^nd opposite party. During the warranty period itself the refrigerator became faulty due to the defect of its Timer. The opposite party replaced the defective Timer with a new one on 21.04.2010. But the next day itself that again became faulty and the service engineer of the opposite parties rectified the defect. But on 18.11.2010 the replaced Timer became noisy i.e; immediately one month after the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant alleges that the timer replaced during the warranty period was a sub standard one and of poor quality. The complainant's repeated requests and demands for the replacement of the Timer free of costs were denied by the opposite parties. To prove his contentions complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced the photocopy of purchase bill dated 17.10.2009 as Ext. P1. Ext. P2 to P4 are the copies of complaint registered in the website of 1^st opposite party. In this case the opposite parties never turned up to contest the case. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. From the available evidence we find that the Timer replaced was a substandard one. On that reason it became faulty immediately. Hence there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. Hence complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to replace the Timer free of cost with a new one and opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid for the above said entire amount.

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 15^th day of July 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 99/2011

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of Form B retail invoice No. M 106 dated 17.10.2009

P2 - Copy of e-mail

P3 - Copy of e-mail

P4 - Copy of e-mail

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb