IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 222/2022 (Filed on 26-10-2022
Complainant : Dadu Chacko,
Devilla, Kanam P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. R.K. Prasad and Adv. Geetha Sankar)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1. The Managing Director,
Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.
6th Floor, DLF Center,\
Sansadmarg, New Delhi – 110001
2. Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd.
Kadavanthara,
Ernakulam – 682020.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Manu J. Varappally)
3. The Proprietor / CCO,
Quilon Radio Service,
Baker Junction, Kottayam.
(Adv. Noble Joseph and Adv. Elvis J. Alex)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
On 8-9-2016 the complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator from the 3rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.37,300/-.After one and a half year, problems started with the working of the said refrigerator. The main issue was that its freezer was not working. And after repeated request, several technicians from the opposite parties, checked the refrigerator and finally reported that the defects cannot be cured. On each visit of technicians from the opposite parties, they were compelled to pay fee for the services, but of no use. On repeated requests from the complainant, on 20/08/2020, the 3rd opposite party replaced the defective one with a new Samsung Refrigerator amounting to Rs.37,300.00/.
But within one year same problems started with the replaced refrigerator and now also several technicians from the opposite party company checked the same and they also failed to repair the refrigerator. To solve the problems the complainant’s old parents paid much amount to the opposite party’s technicians.
Complainant’s aged parents are living alone in the house and they went through much difficulties without a proper functioning refrigerator. They were very much depending on it for preserving food items, and finally they were forced to purchase a new fridge from another company. All these miseries to the aged couple including financial loss happened only due to the manufacturing defect of the opposite party’s product for which all opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
On 8-6-22 the petitioner sent a Lawyer’s notice to the opposite parties requesting appropriate remedy for the troubles occurred to him due to the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. For which the 1st and 2nd opposite parties gave an evasive reply stating that they are ready to repair the defective refrigerator again on payment of estimate of Rs.3,059/-as its service charge. The complainant is not ready to accept their offer of further repair of the same defective refrigerator. The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Due to this the complainant and his parents suffered great mental agony and financial loss and that is to be compensated.
Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to repay Rs.37,300.00/ which is the price of the Samsung Refrigerator and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.80,000/towards the compensation under various heads and to pay Rs.20,000/ towards the cost of the litigation.
After the admission of the complaint, the notice was duly served to the opposite parties. First and second opposite parties appeared before the Commission and the first opposite party filed version. Second opposite party filed a memo that they are adopting the contention of the first opposite party and they have no separate version. Though the notice was received by the third opposite party on 23-11- 2022 and appeared before this Commission on 28-11- 2022 3 rd opposite party did not file the version within the statutory period. Hence third opposite party is set ex-party.
Version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The first Opposite party is a well reputed company and is having a large customer base and among other manufacturers, manages the electronic appliances from a mobile handset business and having its office at New Delhi.
The complainant had purchased Samsung refrigerator on 8-9-2016 having serial number 0 4 E KPB N 700232 W and model number RT37T4533UT/ HL at a consideration of Rs 37,300/-.
When the complainant raised complaint regarding low cooling issue of the refrigerator, the service engineer inspected the unit and informed the complainant that the repairs shall be done on chargeable basis since the unit is out of warranty which was denied by the complainant. The service centre out of goodwill just offered 75 percentage depreciated refund to the complainant but the complainant thereafter never acknowledged the same and remained non contactable. The service centre tried multiple times to contact the complainant but the complainant remained non contactable.
There were no manufacturing defects in the refrigerator. The opposite parties have acted as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and compliance with law. As per the terms and conditions of warranty replacement or refund of the product in case of physical damage or mishandling of the product and out of warranty period or providing compensation was not mentioned in the warranty card as well. Moreover no defects or issues due to water or physical damages, mishandling, improper handling or any other reasons and defects which could be rectified ,for such a situation or condition, replacement repair, or refund or compensation is not mentioned in the warranty card as well. It is submitted in the version that first opposite party is willing to carry out the necessary repairs of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual. There was neither any deficiency in rendering service on the part of the first opposite party nor did they indulge into unfair trade practise and therefore the first opposite party is not liable to refund or replace or provide compensation for the product as the complainant refused the refund offered by the first opposite party.
Complainant filed a proof affidavit and marked exhibit A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant. Sandeep Sahijwani who is the director customer satisfaction of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked exhibit B 1 and B 2. Report of the expert commissioner is marked as exhibit C1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point Nos.1 and 2
The specific case of the complainant is that on August 9, 2016, the complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator from a third opposite party s for Rs. 37,300/- vide exhibit A1 retail invoice. Approximately one and a half years later, issues arose with the refrigerator’s functionality, particularly with its freezer failing to operate. It is proved by exhibit A2 that on 29-8-2019 the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,075/- to the authorised service centre of the first opposite party being the labour cost and the cost for main board. Despite multiple requests and payments for technician visits from the opposite parties, the issues persisted. Eventually, after continuous complaints, on August 20, 2020, the third opposite party replaced the faulty refrigerator with a new one of the same model, valued at Rs. 37,300.
However, within a year, the replaced refrigerator began experiencing the same issues. Despite numerous attempts by technicians from the opposite parties to rectify the problems, they were unsuccessful. The complainant’s elderly parents incurred significant expenses paying for the services of the technicians. On June 8, 2022, the petitioner sent a Lawyer’s Notice to the opposite parties, demanding a suitable resolution for the hardships endured due to their unfair trade practices. In response, the first and second opposite parties provided a vague reply, offering to repair the defective refrigerator again for a service charge estimate of Rs.3,059/-.
The second opposite party in the version as well as in the proof affidavit admitted that the complainant raised a complaint regarding the cooling issue of the refrigerator and the service engineer inspected the refrigerator and found that the compressor of the refrigerator needed to be replaced. It is contented by the second opposite party that though they offered the refund for the refrigerator that was denied by the complainant. It is further contended by the 1st opposite party that there was no manufacturing defect in the refrigerator.
Exhibit B1 is the copy of the customer service record. On going through the exhibit B1 we can see that it is recorded that the defect was dictated as no cooling and the engineer suggested to repair main PCB and sensor. The authorised service centre of the first opposite party on 28-5-2022 issued exhibit B2 estimate for an amount of Rs.3,059/- to the complainant for the replacement of the PCB.
In order to prove the case of the complainant applied for the appointment of an Expert Commission and the Expert Commissioner filed his report and the same was marked as exhibit C1. In exhibit C1 it was reported by the Expert Commissioner that the main board of the refrigerator was defective and due to this defect the cool conversion system of the refrigerator was not working. According to the Expert Commissioner due to this defect the freezer only is working and this defect was not a rectifiable one.
First and second opposite parties contended that the physical damage or the defect due to the mishandling of the refrigerator was out of warranty yet they did not produce the terms and conditions of the warranty before this Commission. They did not adduce any evidence to prove that the defect of the refrigerator was caused due to the physical damage or mishandling of the refrigerator.
The first and second opposite parties contented that in case of the defects which could be rectified the replacement or refund or compensation is not mentioned in the warranty. However it is pertinent to note that the expert commissioner reported in C1 that the defect of the refrigerator could not be rectified and it happened during the manufacturing of the refrigerator. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice by replacing a refrigerator which have inherent manufacturing defect and further committed deficiency in service by not repairing the defect of the refrigerator under warranty.
However it is pertinent to note that the complainant had purchase a refrigerator which is manufactured by the first opposite party on 8- 9- 2016 for a consideration of Rs.37,300/-. Admittedly he used the same for more than four years and the refrigerator was replaced by the third opposite party on 28-8-2020. It is proved by exhibit A2 that the first opposite party had given an estimate stating the cost of the repairs on 28-5-2022. From these it is evident that the complainant used the refrigerator for about 6 years for which he had paid the consideration in the year 2016.
On a thoughtful evaluation of the above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that allowing the 75% of the consideration paid by the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
Hence we allow this complaint in part and pass the following order.
(1)We hereby direct the first party opposite party to refund Rs.27,975/- (Rupees Twenty seven thousand nine hundred and seventy five only) that is the 75% of Rs.37, 300/- to the complainant.
(2)We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party.
(3) We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of this litigation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Retail invoice by QRS for Rs.37,300
A2 – Copy of invoice No.1585 by Samsung Quality Services
A2 (a) - Copy of invoice No.2940 by Samsung Quality Services
A3 – Lawyers notice dtd.8-6-22 by Adv. Geetha Sankar to opposite parties
A4 –Reply letter dtd.21-7-2022
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of customer service record
B2 –Copy of letter dtd.28-05-2022 by Samsung to complainant
Commission Report
C1 – Commission report dtd.18-01-24 submitted by E.T. Shaji
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
