- Mr. Kanchan Kumar,
Flat No.B/16,11, Dover Park,
Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-19._________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The General Manager,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
A-25, Ground Floor, Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi – 110044.
- The Product Service Manager,
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Sumangal House, Ground Floor,
Lee Road, Kolkata-20.
- The Manager,
Sales Emporium (Lansdowne)
68, Sarat Bose Road,
Kolkata-25, P.S. Ballygunge. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 16 Dated 30/03/2016
The case of the complainant in short is that on 9.1.13 complainant purchased one Samsung refrigerator, model no.RT3135TNB RK/TL, SL No.R4004PAC900290M from M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. together with 2 other items viz. one Samsung T.V. and one Micro Oven for his domestic use from o.p. no.3 on payment of the total price of the goods aggregating Rs.1,01,900/- vide cheque no.783949 drawn on Syndicate Bank. The purchase price of the refrigerator was 26,000/- only including of tax. The full payment was made by complainant against Memo No.CR/02888/1/2012-2013 dt.9.1.13. O.p. no.3 is a dealer of the goods of the Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. i.e. o.p. nos.1 and 2.
Complainant had booked for a black colour refrigerator but he was supplied with one red colour refrigerator on 18.1.13. On taking delivery complainant detected the following inherent manufacturing defects:- (a) having bulk quantity accumulation of water on the back tray, (b) the front right side leg was found damaged, (c) not having proper cooling.
Complainant at the time of installation of the refrigerator complained verbally to the installation staff of o.p. no.3 about the defect of the leg, but the staff simply stated that the flooring tiles are uneven because of this the refrigerator was unstable. The above statement is untrue and without any basis. On receiving the complaint from complainant the service engineer of o.ps. visited the place of complainant but failed to cure the defect of considerable water accumulation in the tray.
O.p. no.2 by a letter dt.26.3.13 replied to the complainant in response to his complaint that the defective leg will be repaired and suo motto extended the original warranty till 8.4.14. But nothing was stated about the problem of accumulation of unnecessary water in the tray in that letter.
Complainant by mail / letter dt.2.4.13 addressed to o.p. no.2 with copy of o.p. no.1 expressed his dissatisfaction and his actual grievance and claimed for the replacement of the refrigerator. Complainant informed the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 that he was supplied with a refrigerator with patent manufacturing defects and requested to replace the same. Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
In spite of receipt of notices o.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case was heard ex parte against the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the evidence of the complainant and documents in particular and we find that complainant had booked for a black colour refrigerator but he was supplied with one red colour refrigerator on 18.1.13. On taking delivery complainant detected the following inherent manufacturing defects:- (a) having bulk quantity accumulation of water on the back tray, (b) the front right side leg was found damaged, (c) not having proper cooling. Complainant at the time of installation of the refrigerator complained verbally to the installation staff of o.p. no.3 about the defect of the leg, but the staff simply stated that the flooring tiles are uneven because of this the refrigerator was unstable. The above statement is untrue and without any basis. Complainant by mail / letter dt.2.4.13 addressed to o.p. no.2 with copy of o.p. no.1 expressed his dissatisfaction and his actual grievance and claimed for the replacement of the refrigerator. Complainant informed the o.p. nos. 1 and 2 that he was supplied with a refrigerator with patent manufacturing defects and requested to replace the same.
O.ps. had not filed any w/v in this case and as such, the evidence adduced by complainant has remained unchallenged testimony and we have nothing to disbelieve the same and accordingly, we find o.ps. had made deficiency in service being service providers to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand) only to the complainant and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
