Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/19/2015

Krishna Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, SAMSUNG - Opp.Party(s)

Appellant In Person

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	19 of 2015
Date of Institution	21.01.2015
Date of Decision	10.03.2015

 

Krishna Devi, R/o #2618, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1. The Managing Director, SAMSUNG,   2nd, 3rd & 4th Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Sector 43, Gurgaon – 122002.

 

2. S.Amarjit Singh, Director, Surindra Radios Pvt. Ltd., SCO 1128, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh - 160022.

 

3. S.Sukhbir Singh, Proprietor, M/s Super Tech Engineering, Plot No.182/34, Industrial Area, Ph-I, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Mrs.Krishna Devi, appellant in person.

                 Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents                    No.1 and 3.

                 Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with                      vide order dated 22.01.2015.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.12.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one Air Conditioner (A.C.), Model No.-AR18FC3TDPDNNA_SAC      from Opposite Party No.2 on 15.06.2013 for a sum of Rs.33,900/- vide sale invoice (Annexure C-1). It was stated that immediately after installation, the Opposite Party’s customer service was called and informed that the A.C. was not providing good cooling. The Executives assured that it would work fine after some time of use. It was further stated that the product was used for only 3 months in 2013, due to the onset of winters. When the Engineer of the Opposite Parties was called for service in April 2014, he confirmed that there was gas leakage in the product. It was further stated that after a few days, the Opposite Party sent its Engineer for re-filling of gas of A.C. but the said Engineer told that it was an internal fault and there was no guarantee that the issue might come up and also informed that the concerned model was no longer being sold in the market. The complainant refused to get the gas filled, when the Opposite Parties declined to provide any guarantee.  It was further stated that two e-mails were sent via online customer support of Samsung and the Opposite Parties sent their Engineer to check the A.C., who again confirmed that there was an internal fault.

3.             It was further stated that the A.C. was taken to the Service Centre on 18.5.2014 (Annexure C-2) after one week of the Engineer’s visit, and that too when the complainant called many times to insist the Opposite Parties to look into the issue. It was further stated that when no communication was received from the Opposite Parties, the complainant went to the dealer concerned. It was further stated that when the dealer called the Service Centre, the Opposite Party confirmed that there was a coil breakage in the A.C. and asked her to pay Rs.6000/- to get it repaired but she refused to pay the same, as it was not her fault. Ultimately, the complainant sent a notice to the Opposite Parties on 28.5.2014 (Annexure C-3) and, thereafter, an email was sent on 4.6.2014, which was duly replied to by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant got a call from the Opposite Party informing that only repaired product would be given back. It was further stated that the complainant did not want to take back a faulty product and spend money every year for its repair. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties caused much harassment to the complainant, as she had to buy a new A.C., on installments, after not being able to bear the rising mercury levels. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

4.             Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, but Opposite Party No.2 did not appear, despite service. Hence, Opposite Party No.2, was proceeded against exparte on 16.09.2014.

5.             In their written statement, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, admitted the factual aspects of the matter and denied that the complainant approached the replying Opposite Parties immediately after installation of the machine (Air Conditioner). It was stated that no date or complaint number was mentioned by the complainant. The machine was re-inspected after installation on 06.07.2013 and no fault was found in the same. It was further stated that when the complaint was received, visit was made to the premises of the complainant and gas leakage was found in the same. It was further stated that the complainant herself admitted that she refused permission for gas refilling. It was further stated that gas was only filled after checking of the machine and not covered under warranty. The complaint was attended on 18.5.2014 and the complainant was requested to permit the refilling of the gas, after the checking of the machine, which she declined. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties asserted that as a special case, the complainant was also offered the repair free of cost, which she refused. The complainant also refused to take back the unit.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.             The complainant, filed replication to the written statement filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3. 

7.             The parties led evidence, in support of his case.

8.             After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

9.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

10.            We have heard the appellant/complainant in person, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 3, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

11.            The appellant/complainant submitted that the representative/mechanics visited her house but went away without carrying out any service. She was informed by the representative/ mechanics that the machine had internal fault and the said model of the machine was no longer being sold in the market. She further submitted that the Opposite Parties, after filing of the complaint in the District Forum, came forward to reinstall the machine stating that the same had been repaired but without providing any guarantee that the machine would not cause any problem. She further submitted that under the compelling circumstances and keeping in view the health problem of her husband, the complainant purchased another Air Conditioner and got it installed at her premises. She further submitted that since the mechanic of the Opposite Parties informed her that the machine had internal fault, as such, she did not permit the refilling of gas at her premises. She further submitted that the Opposite Parties after removal of A.C, did not intimate the complainant about the fault for days together. She further submitted that the A.C. was taken away to the Service Centre as there was major problem. She further submitted that the District Forum even in the impugned order had given finding in para No.9 that the Opposite Parties admittedly repaired the defect in the Air Conditioner and they are ready to provide the repairs free of cost, without charging anything it being within the warranty period but has failed to give any directions to the Opposite Parties to repair the product free of cost but has merely dismissed the complaint. She further prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

12.            The Counsel for respondents No.1 and 3/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 submitted that the machine (Air Conditioner) after being duly repaired, is in perfect working order, which has been lying with the service centre of the Company. However, the complainant did not grant the permission to install the same back at her premises and neither she came forward to collect the same.  He further submitted that the problem in the Air Conditioner was on account of leakage of gas and it was also informed to her that there was a condenser (not coil) breakage. The breakage could only occur on account of external force. He further submitted that the same could not be said to have caused on account of any manufacturing defect. He further submitted that the Air Conditioner was purchased by the complainant in June, 2013 and regular service had also been carried out in April, 2014 and no defect in the machine was found nor any complaint was lodged by her prior to the same. He further submitted that though the defect in the machine was on account of condenser breakage, which was not on account of any defect in the machine but on account of external reasons, and the same was not covered under the warranty conditions, yet the same was repaired free of cost by considering the same to be as under warranty. However, she chose not to take back the machine.

13.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the appellant/complainant, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 3, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

14.            Admittedly, the appellant/complainant purchased one Samsung Air Conditioner from Surindra Radios Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2)  for a sum of Rs.33,900/- vide invoice dated 15.06.2013 (Annexure C-1). Annexure C-2 is a copy of the Service Request dated 18.05.2014. From this document, it is proved that the Air Conditioner was taken to the service centre i.e. Super Tech Engineers, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.3) on 18.05.2014 for its repair because it was having cooling problem. As per the appellant/complainant, when she visited personally Opposite Party No.3, after sending the Air Conditioner for its repairs, she came to know that there was a coil breakage in the Air Conditioner and she was asked to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to get it repaired, which she refused to pay. Annexure C-3 is a copy of the letter/notice dated 28.5.2014. From this document, it is proved that the complainant sent a letter/notice regarding defect in the Air Conditioner to Opposite Party No.1, with a copy to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and requested for replacement of the Air Conditioner or refund of the price of the same. Annexure C-4 is a copy of the Bank Passbook, which clearly reflects that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2400/- per month by taking loan, for the purchase of Air Conditioner. Annexure C-5 (colly) are copies of the prescription slips dated 15.03.2013 & 11.06.2013, which were issued by Dr.Swami Dass Mehta, Skin Specialist. From these documents, it is proved that Sh.Prem Sagar Sharma, husband of the complainant suffered from skin problem.  Annexure C-6 is a copy of the retail invoice dated 13.06.2014. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased another Air Conditioner on 13.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.28,840/- from Modern Sales, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

15.            As per respondents No.1 and 3/Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, they are ready to provide the repair of the Air Conditioner free of cost, without charging anything. They also point out that Supertech Engineers (Opposite Party No.3) sent a letter to the complainant (at page No.23 of District Forum file) and requested her to get the repaired Air Conditioner installed at her residence.

16.            Moreover, the letter  undated (at page No.23 of District Forum file) which was sent by Supertech Engineers to the complainant, reads as under :-

“This is regarding your Ac Model No.AR18FC3TDPDXNA Sr.No. E243PP0D50000GB Claim No.4173979824 which We had Received at service centre on 18.05.2014 with problem of Cond. Leakage. We have changed the Cond. And Gas Charging of the system and now the system is working very fine. You are requested to Allow to fit your AC from your home at the earliest.”

From the aforesaid letter, it is proved that Opposite Party No.3 received the Air Conditioner at its service centre on 18.05.2014 with the problem of Cond. Leakage and they changed the Cond. and Gas Charging of the system. No doubt, the complainant purchased the Air Conditioner from Opposite Party No.2 on 15.06.2013 and the said AC gave the cooling problem, for which, the said AC was taken to its service centre on 18.05.2014 (Annexure C-2) and the said document clearly reflects that the said product (AC) was within warranty period, when the AC was taken to its service centre. Even the complainant purchased the said Air Conditioner by taking loan, as reflected in Annexure C-4, after saving their hard earned money. Even the appellant/complainant has failed to file any document/report of any mechanic from the agency that the said Air Conditioner was having manufacturing defect and the same could not be repaired. So, the complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the Air Conditioner with a new one.

17.    It is crystal clear from the letter (at page No.23) that there was some problem in the Air Conditioner and they rectified the defect in the same and requested the complainant to allow to fit the Air Conditioner at her residence. Otherwise also, the Opposite Parties were under legal obligation to repair the Air Conditioner, free of cost because it was within warranty, when the defect developed. As per the appellant/complainant, the Opposite Parties after filing of the complaint, before the District Forum, came forward to reinstall the Air Conditioner and under the compelling circumstances, due to the health problem of her husband, she purchased another Air Conditioner. It is clearly proved that the Opposite Parties failed to provide the service, in time, for which, the appellant/complainant is entitled to compensation for mental tension and harassment, which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

18.    It is no doubt true that the District Forum, while passing the impugned order, mentioned in para No.9 that the Opposite Parties admittedly repaired the defect in the Air Conditioner and they are ready to provide the repairs, free of cost, without charging anything because its being within the warranty period but it instead of giving any direction to the Opposite Parties for repair of the Air Conditioner, free of cost, dismissed the complaint, without any logic and, as such, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.  

19.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant, is accepted with costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is partly accepted. The Opposite Parties (now respondents) are held jointly and severally liable and directed as under:-

i)              To repair the Air Conditioner, replace the defective part(s) thereof, if any, to the satisfaction of the appellant/complainant, free of charge,  and fit the same at the house of the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

ii)             To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant/complainant for mental tension and harassment, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.  

iii)            To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the appellant/complainant.

iv)            This order be complied with, by the Opposite Parties (now respondents) within the stipulated period of 30 days, failing which, they shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation, as mentioned in Clause (ii) above, to the appellant/complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation.

20.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

21.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

10.03.2015                                                                 Sd/- 

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb