The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one Samsung Double Door Refrigerator model no. RT 252 GAACSE at a consideration price of Rs.14,800/- on 16.8.2012 from the oP no.1 through financer Bajaj Finance Ltd. After perusing the guarantee card issued by the Op no.1 the complainant found that the refrigerator 12 months comprehensive period and 60 months guarantee for compressor . On 25.8.2014 the cooling system of said refrigerator is stop working and the complainant made contact with the Op no.1 and Op no.1 told the complainant to make contact with Op no.2 Service Centre. Accordingly, complainant made contact with Op no.2 on 2.9.2014 . On 2.9.2014 OP no.2 sent their agent who came to the complainant’s house and informed that compressor of the said refrigerator was defective and asked the complainant to arrange a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, Op no.2 sent a bill regarding value of the compressor to the tune of Rs.1656/- on 29.1.2015 and the defective compressor was replaced with a new one.
It is further alleges that on the next date the new compressor is stopped working . The complainant made verbal complaint to the oP no.1 . But the oP no.1 did not take any responsibility rather he told complainant to go to Op no.2 and Op no.2 received the said refrigerator from the residence of the complainant. It is further case that inspite of repeated demand by the complainant since 4.3.2015 the oP no.2 did not return the said refrigerator in favour of the complainant and the same is lying in the custody of the oP no.2. In this way nor Op no. 1 nor Op no.2 neither replaced the defective refrigerator with new one nor refund the entire amount to the tune of Rs.14,800/-. So, finding no alternative the complainant lodged
complainant before CA & FBP on 19.5.15 but the complainant did not get fruitful result to resolve the dispute . Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Op no.1 appeared and contested the case denying inter alia all material allegations raised by the complainant . It is stated that the Opposite party no.1 is nothing but a agent or dealer of the manufacturer and sell out goods in question of the different manufacturers to the customers . As such, the oP no.1 being an agent or dealer of the manufacturer cannot be responsible in any manner whatsoever in regard to the manufacturing defect of the refrigerator. The complainant did not make the Samsung India as a party in this case for settlement of claim of manufacturing defect. Accordingly, the case against Op no.1 should be dismissed for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary party. It is also stated that the question of manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant , liability cannot be imposed on the OP no.1 in any manner whatsoever. In para 15 of Written version it is also stated that in the purchased bill dated 18.8.2012 wherein the customer undertook that “I as a customer do agree that warrantee/guarantee offered on goods will be undertaken by the manufacturer only and under no circumstances your company will be liable for any complaints whatsoever”. It is alleges that complainant is bound by the terms of the purchased bill for which the allegation of manufacturing defects made by the complainant did not lie upon OP no.1 . So there is no deficiency on the part of the OP no.1 as such, the case should be dismissed.
The complainant has filed duplicte copy of cash Memo of OP no.1 financed by Bajaj Finance Ltd. dated 16.8.2012 showing the price of the alleged refrigerator . Customer’s details cum warrantee card dated 16.8.2012 with seal of the OP no.1. Another receipt of repairing dated 2.9.2014. Another cash memo of Op no.2 repairing cost 1656. Another paper showing receive of fridge dated 4.3.2015. Another document Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. exclusive service centre work order dated 4.3.2015. This work order shows nature of complaint as reported by the customer complainant . No cooling and articles Samsung Double door refrigerator.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oPs ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is admitted that complainant purchased the alleged refrigerator from Op no.1 in lieu of Rs.14,800/- as per the documents issued by the oP no.1 and with condition of service and guarantee laid down therein. So the complainant is a consumer within the purview of C.P.Act., 1986.
Point no.2 & 3
From the complaint as well as the Written version it appears that complainant purchased the refrigerator and after some days and on 25.8.2014 i.e. within two years from purchase the cooling system stopped working. Op no.2 made repair on 2.9.2014 and 21.1.2015. The cost of the repair works is Rs.1656/-. The bill issued by the Op no.2 ASMIT’S, cash receipt no.5805 , received from the complainant , repairing cost 1656. Insptie of that the cooling system was stopped again . Accordingly, under compulsion the complainant informed Op no.1 and 2. On 4.3.2015 the refrigerator was received back by Opno.2 . The complainant finding no alternative made complaint Assistant Director , CA & FBP but the dispute was not settled and the oP no.1 denied their liabilities.
So, from the documents filed by the parties mainly written complaint and purchased bill and guarantee card and service charge report and bill shows that complainant purchased the refrigerator which became defective within two years . Inspite of getting information and complaint Op no.1 relieved himself by giving responsibility to OP no.2 and the company who manufactured the fridge. But this Op no.1 sold the product to the complainant with consideration money of Rs.,14,800/- and with adequate guarantee. The complainant ran from pillar to post to get relief as he purchased the refrigerator for his own use but the cooling system is defective . There is no dispute on this point . Even the oP no.1 is well aware that there is manufacturing defect of the fridge but he did not try to meet the demand of the complainant . In this way the Op no.1 avoided his responsibility towards the customer and is liable for unfair
-6-
trade. He is making business for his own profit only . But he has duty to the consumer . Op no.1 has forgotten this taking the plea of some scribed words in the purchased memo. OP no.1 cannot avoid his responsibility in this flimsy ways. He should borne in mind that he is making business for profit only if the purchasers comes before him to purchase the product .It is his utter duty to pay respect to the complainant grievance and give him some relief . it is the duty of the oP no.1 to sell defectless machine of the product , otherwise as he has sold the article he should take all responsibility to cure the defect or give remedy to the grievances of the complainant.
We have gone through the written statement ., We have gone through the paper of purchase and condition therein. We have gone through the necessary step taken by the complainant to cure the defect and last of all the complainant deposit the article in favour of the Op no.2 on 4.3.2015 and no step has been taken by the oP no.1 to replace the defective articles with the help of the company or on his own accord. So, we are of opinion that it is a fit case to allow the claim of the complainant by passing order for a new refrigerator or price of the refrigerator at that time of purchase with interest on that amount and other reliefs. According it is –
Ordered
That the CC case no. 182 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.1 is directed to replace the refrigerator in question with a new one or in default Op is directed to refund the amount of Rs.14,800/- along with interest 18% per annum since 25.8.2014 till full
payment. The OP no.1 is also directed to pay compensation of amount of Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, pain , mental agony on the ground that after incurring expenses the complainant has to run from here and there to get a defectless product and for this his sufferings shall be compensated by Rs.50,000/-. The Op no.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
All the above orders should complied by 45 days from the date of this i.d. the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
