Orissa

Debagarh

CC/27/2016

Sidharath Guru, aged about 40 years, S/O-Indubhusan Guru - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Debta Electrnics - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.B. Meher, S.Guru, S.Dehury

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DEOGARH.

C.D.CASE NO. 27/2016.

Present: Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Sri Pratap Chandra Mahapatra, Member and Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W).

Siddhartha Guru, aged about 40 Yrs,

S/O-Indubhusan  Guru,R/O.-Gurusahi,Ward No-2,

P.S/Dist/-Deogarh.                                                                                                   ….         Complainant.

-Versus- 

1. The Proprietor,

          Debta Electronics

At-Kargil Chowk, P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh, (Orissa).        

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square 

         Sector-43, Gurgaon-122009, Haryana, India.                                               .… Opposite Party.

 

            For the complainant : K.B.Meher, S.Guru, S.Dehury ,Advocate.

            For the O.P.no.1  :    None.

            For the O.P.No.2 : K.C.Mohapatra and Associates.

Date of Hearing: 28.03.2017, Date of Order: 11.04.2017

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, the complainant on dtd.30.05.2011 has purchased one Samsung Split Air Conditioner (Bio sleep Plus) having model No-0098PPIZ/50348IX from the O.P-1 for an amount of Rs.29,300/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred) vide retail invoice Sl.No-022,dtd.30.05.2011 and on dt.23.03.2016 the petitioner had some problems in his A/C (Air Conditioner) due to this the said A/C automatically becomes switched off time to time and the petitioner on dt.25.05.2016 informed this matter to the Authorized Service Station at Sambalpur and requested to solve this problems as the A/C was under five year Manufacturer Warranty. The complaint was registered vide regn. no-859609160 on dt.26.05.2016 and message has been received by the complainant regarding this registration. Therefore a Service Engineer named Balaram visited the house of the complainant checked the defects. It was informed by the said Balaram that the Air Conditioner is not working and there is some defects in the PCB and he will come with a new PCB some another day. Again the sad Balaram came on dt.18.06.2016 and changed the PCB but found that the PCB was not defective so he remarked that the compressor is defective and left the place. So the complainant has preferred to file a Consumer case for seeking relief.

That due to death of the O.P-1, he has been made Ex-parte in this case.

The Complainant has appeared before the Forum with his Advocate and filed some copies of mobile messages sent by the Authorized Service Station which shows the complaint has been registered on dt.26.05.2016 vide no-4214841718 at 1.20 p.m., another message on the same day at 2.33 p.m. informing that one service personnel named “Balaram”, having mobile no-8596090160 has been assigned against registered service and he visited the house of the complainant on dt. 29.06.2016, examined the A.C and stated to come with a PCB on another date to ascertain the defect, whether it is due to compressor or not. On dt.08.06.2016, the same service personal came and detected that the Compressor is defective and not the PCB and an amount of Rs.575/- (Rupees five hundred fifty-seven) only was made payable and he never came again. The Complainant several times approached the O.P-1, but no results obtained. Hence he decided to seek Redressal of this Forum.

That, on the other hand the Learned Advocate for the O.P-2 completely denied the allegations made by the Complaint and claimed to be false, misconceived, baseless, frivolous concocted and liable to be dismissed. Again he has stated that there is no cause of action to file this case and no material particulars has been adduced by the complaint that the Air Conditioner has any defect and the deficiency and Unfair Trade Practice by the O.P-2. He stated that, the warranty was for 5 years on the compressor of the A.C but 1 year on the A.C. itself from the date of purchase. Further he stated that the O.P-1 is not the Service Provider after sale and the work of O.P-1 is only to sale the products of the manufacturer with some profits and after sale, he has no role at all for the product. Also he objected that the complainant has not mentioned the registered complain or call in toll-free number in his complaint .Also he confirmed that, the O.P-2 do not sale the product directly to his customers and he always depends upon the distributers and dealers to sale his products. Also he submitted that the service engineer after receiving the notice, had gone to the house of the complainant and found the A.C is in running condition and complainant has knowingly tried to avoid the service engineer to allow him to inspect the A.C. and also avoided to put his signature on the verification report. There is no proof regarding contact/visit the opp. parties or the service Centre for the removal of defect from the said A.C. Hence there is no harassment, mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant for the A.C on behalf the opp. parties or the Service Centre, so the complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed and the petition should be dismissed.

                        Learned advocate for O.P.No.2 submitted that in the complaint, it has been stated that, the defects with the impugned A.C started from 22.3.2016 and the defects developed due to mal-function of the motherboard and not due to compressor and time to time does not means in minutes. Complainant in this stage objects and stated that, without any specialist observation, it cannot be ascertained that the defect is due to motherboard or PCB? He further requested to allow him some hours to verify the genuineness of SMS messages,produced before the court and to prepare his case and consented to continue hearing in the After Noon today. Hence, adjourned the hearing to A.N (3.00 P.M).

            LATER:-In the After Noon session , Learned advocate for the O.P.No.-2 brought an another contradiction that, the dates of contact with the authorized service station as per the petition and the hearing are contradictory as the complainant lodged his complain with customer care on dt.26.5.2016 having Regn.No.421414841418. It is submitted that on the same day i.e, on dt.26.5.2016 one Service Engineer namely “Sukanta” visited the house of the complainant to repair the A.C .Again he stated that,SMS has received on 26.5.2016, and the Service Engineer visited the house of the complainant verified the A.C and changed the capacitor and found that the cooling was slow advised the complainant for  gas filling and given an estimate of Rs.2200/- towards the same and for the second time, the S.E visited on dt.29.5.2016 and asked for the purchase invoice to the complainant for filling of gas in warranty period. As the complainant could not produce the same, hence, the S.E expressed his inability to provide service within warranty. So, the S.E charged Rs.575/- towards the cost of service charge in absent of purchase invoice.

            Again the Advocate for the O.P-2 submitted that, the Complainant suppressed the facts relating to registration of complaint with the Service Engineer to mislead the forum. Also he has not implicated the Samsung Service Centre as a party. The complainant has not produced the invoice bill in case record. And if the compressor is defective it should have been replaced even if it was the last date of warranty period. Again the advocate for the O.P-2 brought to the observation of this Forum that, the letter ‘d’ has been omitted from and a letter ‘a’ has been added to the name of the complainant to mislead the Forum. He also challenged the purchase date of the A.C stating that the same has been purchased on 01.07.2010, earlier to the date 30.5.2016, hence warranty was lapsed at the time of registration of the complaint and filed an acknowledgement of service receipt. Adding to it he, again submitted that, the service engineer did not charged for the replacement of old capacitor against the new capacitor as the old capacitor was not defective but it was in working condition.

Heard both sides.

Points of determination are-

1. Whether the O.P-2 has made any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
2. Whether a cause of action is there in the complaint petition?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?

From the above it can be seen that, the complainant is a consumer who purchased an Air Conditioner (A.C) from the O.P-1 which has a warranty period up to dt.29.5.2016.That,on dtd. 22.03.2016(cause of action),he faced some defect in the A.C which was switched up time to time, drew the attention of the O.P-1 and by his direction the complainant had made contact to the Authorized Service Station(A.S.S) on dt.25.05.2016 but the complaint was registered on dt.26.05.2016.The A.S.S assigned one service manager “Balaram”to the house of the complainant who attended  the complainant on dt.29.05.2016 and changed the PCB, ascertained that the compressor was defective and left the A.C in disorder condition. On dtd 8.06.2016 a bill of Rs.575.00 was sent to the complainant for payment. As the fault was with the Compressor the A.C again continue to give the same problems. Again it is seen from the record that if “Balaram” has been assigned for the work, how another person named “Sukanta” has been deputed for the same purpose ? Again if, the claim of O.P-2 regarding the  deputation of the service personnel Sukanta to the house of the complainant on dt.08.06.2016 is admitted, then how the O.P-2 claims that after receipt of the notice(after dt.16.09.2016) to him, he has directed the authorized service station for deputation of Service Engineer to the house of the complainant. Again the O.P-2 saying that there is 5 years warranty on compressor but 1 year warranty on A.C is a form Unfair Trade Practice to avoid responsibility, as the A.C unit is comprises of three main parts, i.e. Compressor, hot Coils and Cold Coils. As all the three parts collectively form an Air Conditioner, how one can believe the above warranty conditions, i.e warranty is with the Compressor not on A.C ? Again in para-6 of the version, O.P-2 states that, O.P-1 is not responsible for after sale services as his role is to sale the product only. But in para-12, the O.P-2 contradicts its own statement that, as the O.P-2 is the manufacturer, he sales the product through its dealer and distributors, hence responsibility lies on them. If both statements made by the O.P-2 are correct, then to whom a consumer goes for its services in warranty period? Again the averments made in the para-12,if the service engineer visited the house of the complainant after receiving a notice as per the direction of O.P-2,and the complainant knowingly avoided the service engineer, then how the service manager “Balaram” who was assigned by the ASS, has replaced the PCB in the house of the complainant and detected that the compressor was defective and asked for the purchase invoice to the complainant and requested to pay a bill of Rs.575.00 ?Again in the written argument it is seen that, the O.P-2 has alleged that, in the plaint, the name of the complainant has been written as “Sidhartha” instead of “Siddharth”,thus deleting the word ‘d’ and addition of word ’a’ which is a malafide mistake and the O.p-2 demands that the name of the complaint is “Siddhath Guru”. Also the complainant has given his signature as ‘Sidhartha Guru” in every pages, every time and the purchase invoice is also reflects this name. If the claim of the O.P-2 is genuine, then why the O.P-2 has mentioned the name of the complainant as “Sridharth Guru” in their Vakalatnama, Written statements and written arguments? The O.P-2 has the duty to object it in the first instance, i.e. at the time filling Vakalatnama, W/S etc. So it is ridiculous to say so. Again the O.P-2 has not submitted any relevant documents regarding the date of purchase of the A.C. which he claims to be purchased on dt.01.07.2010.If it is true, then how the O.P-2 has stated in the Para no-12 in his written version that the warranty period of A.C was expired on dt.29.05.2012? Also the O.P-2 has not submitted any relevant documents to stand its claim because mere denial does not make any impact on the genuineness of the purchase invoice filed by the complainant which is a hand written invoice not a computer generated or fraudulent as claimed by O.P-2. Moreover the Acknowledgement of Service request filed by the O.P-2 are Computer generated, printed after the filling of this case seems to be prepared purposefully, where signatures of the parties are lacking.

Another thing about not making the authorized Service Station as a party in this case is that, the O.P-1 has assured the complainant that, he (O.P-1) will take all responsibility towards the warranty cover of the A.C, so the complainant did not make him party.

From all the above discussion, after going through the materials on record, the interference comes out that, the Complainant is a bonafide consumer and the written version and written argument filed by the O.P-2 are self-contradictory in nature and confusing. The O.Ps have committed deficiency in service U/S-2(1)(g) and Unfair Trade Practice U/S-2(1)(r) to the complainant as he has sustained both mental and physical pain by approaching the O.Ps and resisted the summer heat throughout the summer season and could have provided better service towards this defective compressor for which the A.C becomes switches up time to time to comply domestic need of the complainant and his family. Also we feel that the complainant a have sustained physical pain in spite of having an A.C. Though the warranty was for five tears and the complaint was within the time, the O.Ps did not bother to serve him, rather harassed him. So it is the duty of the O.Ps to provide a defect free A.C by replacing the defective Compressor in place of a new and defect free Compressor to the complainant. As in this stage, substitution of a new A.C seems to be improper.

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The O.P.No.2 is directed to replace the Compressor of the said A.C in place of the defective one and pay Rs.2,000/-as mental agony and pain and Rs.1,500/- as cost of litigation, for the defective A.C and the deficiency of Service caused by them. The O.P-2 is directed to comply the order within 30 days of receiving this order, failing which the O.P. shall have to pay in addition, an interest of 9% per annum till actually the amount is paid in course of law.

Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

Order is pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 11^rd April,2017 under my hand and seal of this forum..

           

MEMBER.                                                        MEMBER.                                            PRESIDENT.

Dictated and Corrected

by me.

 

PRESIDENT.

Pratap Chandra Mahaptra, Member:

Reason of disagree.

I am not inclined to the conclusion arrived as above due to the following facts:

1. Complainant has filed a copy of Cash Memo bearing Serial No.022 of dated 30/05/11 supporting purchase of one Split Air-Conditioner, Make – Samsung, Model No.-0098PPIZ, Serial No.50348IX from Debta Electronics, Deogarh, whereby, evincing the fact that the A/C was purchased on 30.05.2011. On the contrary, OP2 has adduced four Customer Acknowledgement of Service Request in short, ASR, which relate to lodging of complain with Customer Care Centre, Samsung on 26.05.2016, 29.06.2016 and consequential Services extended and one ASR relating to complain lodged on 09.05.2013. ASR related to 26.05.2016, reveals that one Service Engineer, Balaram Dehuri visited the premises of the complainant on 26.05.2016, the defect description is “Less cooling” duly signed by the complainant. The date of purchase has been mentioned as 30.05.2011. [Exhbt. R-]. ASR related to complain of 29.06.2016, the defect description being “Less Cooling” duly signed by some family member which is not legible. Also on it the date of purchase is 30.05.2011[Exhbt. R-]. But in the ASR related to 09.05.2013 [Exhbt. R-] reveals that the defect description is “No Cooling” on18.06.2013 and there in the Date of purchase has been stated to be) 1.07.2010 and the warranty status was “Out of Warranty”. The Complaint petition is silent on the fact of Service Engineers visit to the premises of the complainant on 26.05.2016 and on 29.06.2016 and even Learned Advocate for Complainant during hearing on 08.03.2017 denied the fact that Service Engineer of OP2 had visited the premises of the Complainant.

Since Complainant has not come with clean hands and has resorted to suppression of facts, I believe, attempt has been made to gain unlawfully out of the benevolent legislation. I order as under:

ORDER

            The complaint petition is disallowed. Since endeavor has been made by the complainant to gain materially out of the benevolent legislation, Complainant is directed to make a deposit of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only to the Consumer Welfare Fund within 45 days from pronunciation of this order, failing which, in addition to this amount interest shall have to be paid @9% till the amount is deposited actually.

            Dictated & Corrected                                                                      (P.C. Mahaptra)

                        by me                                                                                          Member.

 

            (P.C. Mahapatra),

                  Member.