Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/149/2015

Mr.M.Arumugam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Srinivasan

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  05.10.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  17.10.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 17^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.149/2015

 

 

Mr.M.Arumugam,

S/o Muniyan,

No.26/27,Tank Band Road,

Otteri,

Chennai – 600 012.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Manager,

Chellamani & Co. Kellys Branch,

No.142 Purasaiwakam High Road,

Kellys, Chennai – 10.

 

2.The Manager,

Samsung Authorised Service  Center,

Vijay Ganesh Engineering,

Plot No.6, Madhavan Nager Ext. Venkadasai Nager,

Vinayagapuram,

Chennai – 600 099.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 28.10.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. K.Srinivasan, T.Parthasarathy

                                                                 & M.Kothandaraman      

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party                 : Ex – Parte  (30.11.2015)

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                      : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh, K.Senthil

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant   to replace the air conditioner   or refund the cost of the product and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Samsung Split Air-conditioner on 06.05.2011 from the 1^st opposite party/dealer for a valuable consideration of Rs.23,950/-. The said air-conditioner was having 5 years warranty. The air-conditioner was stopped functioning from February 2012 and  hence the complainant registered a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party customer care. Again on 22.03.2013 the said product got so many problems and he made a complaint and after service, he was charged a sum of Rs.4,075/- towards valve + harenet. Again on 05.08.2013, it stopped functioning and he made a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party.  His service man went to the complainant house and charged a sum of Rs.1,750/- for gas filling. After 6 months on 28.02.2014 product stopped working and the 2^nd opposite party serviced and charged a sum of Rs.2,352/- for replacing spare valve + harenet. On 12.06.2015 the complainant again paid a sum of Rs.3,112/- for the same problem of changing spare valve and harenet. The service man of the 2^nd opposite party went to the complainant house and informed him that if he spend Rs.7,000/- for repairing the product, then only it will properly function. Therefore, the service rendered by the 2^nd opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

          2. The 1^st opposite party remained ex-parte.      

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

       The Air Conditioner purchased by the complainant under the warranty is covered for a period of one year under the terms of warranty and not 5 years as alleged by the complainant and only the compressor is covered under the warranty for a period of 5 years and for all other spare parts the warranty is for one year only. Whenever they receive a service call from the complainant, it was duly attended by the service engineers and they have rectified the same and delivered to the complainant with fullest satisfaction of the same and delivered to the complainant and the complainant accepted with regard to the availing of service rendered by the 2^nd opposite party.

          4. The gas of the Air conditioner has to be filled in periodically as by usage it will get evaporated therefore mere filling of gas to the Air Conditioner cannot be termed as defect in the Air Conditioner and the 2^nd opposite party is entitled to charge for the filling of the gas even during the warranty period. The complainant had given the Air Conditioner to a third party and the 2^nd opposite party cannot give the credibility and genuineness of the service rendered by the third party only. When genuine spare parts are used then the air conditioner will be running in a good condition. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and there is no cause of action for filing the above complaint.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased  Samsung Split AC from the first opposite party/dealer for a valuable consideration of Rs.23,950/- under Ex.A1 bill on 06.05.2011  and after using for some time, the complainant serviced the product with the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service centre of the Samsung and he had also serviced the complainant product on several time and issued Ex.A2 service bill to the complainant and thereafter the complainant issued Ex.A3 legal notice to the  opposite parties and also manufacturer.

          7. According to the complainant the product stopped functioning from February 2012 onwards on several occasions and all  the occasions he gave the product for service to the 2^nd opposite party and who had done paid service by filling gas and also changing valve and harenet and to prove the same the service bill issued by him is marked as Ex.A2 for the period from 22.03.2013 to 12.06.2015 and service rendered by him is deficient and has not properly rectified the product and hence the complaint is filed to replace the product or to refund the cost of the product with compensation.

          8. The 1^st opposite party is only a dealer  and he had only sold the product of his manufacturer to the complainant and hence he has not committed any deficiency in service by selling the product.

          9. Ex.A2 series is the service bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized service provider of the Samsung Product. As per the service bills issued by him, he attended service on 22.03.2013 and filled gas and on 03.08.2013 attended service and filled gas.  On 28.02.2014, 12.06.2015 he had attended service and changed spares valve and harenet. On 23.05.2015 bill he charged only labour charges. As alleged by the complainant on the above mentioned four services, the 2^nd opposite party only filled gas and changed some spares. How that filling of gas and changing  spares was a defective service  made by the 2^nd opposite party has not been established by the complainant. Further according to the opposite party, the product is having one year warranty and the compressor only has five years warranty. Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party attended the service on payment basis is justifiable. The complainant sought replacement of the product or refund of the cost of the product would be accepted only when the product is having manufacturing defect and that too such a prayer is maintainable only against the manufacturer.  Here manufacturer is not added as a party. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has not proved deficiency committed by the 2^nd opposite party and hence it is held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant.   

10. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 17^th day of October 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 06.05.2011                   Purchase bill No.016508 issued by  1^st opposite

                                                   party  

 

Ex.A2 dated 23.10.2013                   Service bill issued by opposite party -2

23.05.2015

 

Ex.A3 dated 02.09.2015                   Complainant’s Lawyer’s Notice with Receipt

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ………. NIL …….

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT