Orissa

Debagarh

CC/51/2017

Pravati Deb, W/O-Udaya Bhanu Deb - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Zebra Motors - Opp.Party(s)

K.B. Meher

09 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

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

C.C Case No-  51 /2017.

Present-        Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Pravati Deb, aged about 38 years,

W/O-Udaya Bhanu Deb,

At-Babusahi,Ward No-11,

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

                                                   Versus

 

1. The Propreitor, Zebra Motors,

          Jhanda Chowk, Jharsuguda,

          P.O/P.S/Dist-Jharsuguda-768201.

      2.   The Manager Customer Care Centre,

             Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd,

             21^st floor, Two Horizon Centre,

             Golf Course Road,DCF Phase-V,Sector-43,

              Gurugaon, Hariyana-1222002

     3.    Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

            2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square,

              Sector-43, Gurgaon-122009,

             Haryana, India. … Opposite Parties.

 

   For the Complainant           : -        Nemo

   For the O.P-1                        :-         None

   For the O.P-2                        :-         None

   For the O.P-3                        :-         Sri. M.N Sharma, Advocate.      

 

      

DATE OF HEARING: 27.06.2019, DATE OF ORDER: 09.07.2019.

Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W)-   Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has purchased one Samsung Inverter Air Conditioner from the O.P-1 on payment of Rs.48,000/-. It has a Warranty for 10 years on the Compressor and 3 years on Multichannel condenser from the date of purchase. During the course of use the Complainant found that there is no cooling in the room at all and the A.C is shut down time to time. She made contact with the O.P-2 who sent one service personnel to the house of the Complainant .He inspected the A.C and found that the A.C Circuit and the Power Supply were damaged due to short circuit which needs to be replaced. He removed the Power Supply from the A.C and took it with him to replace a new one of proper match. The Service Personnel did not come with the power supply for long time but served to the Complainant an estimate of Rs 10,000/- towards replacement of Circuit, service charges etc. but he did not repaired the A.C. Thereafter the O.P-2 agreed to refund the amount after deduction of 20% from the price of the A.C to the Complainant, as the same model of circuit is not available in stock. The O.P-2 sought some bank details for remittance of the amount directly to her bank account or issues a cheque in her name. In spite of all the above neither the A.C is repaired nor refund made to the Complainant.

 

But as per the O.P-3, being a reputed Company and manufacturer of various Electronics household products, he is known for his quality & Brand. Their products usually passes through several tests and quality inspection in authorized channel before circulation  in the market and they provide excellent after sale services of its products by qualified and experienced personnel  through a large network of Authorised Service Centres. The O.P-3 partly denied and partly admitted the allegations contained in the Complainant. He claims that there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the A.C nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is established as the Complainant has not submitted any expert opinion in respect of manufacturing defect. Hence he submitted to dismiss the Complaint with Costs for being false, frivolous and vexatious statements. Further he agreed to repair and rectify the defect in the Inverter A.C free of cost up to the warranty period but with certain terms and conditions.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

           

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a consumer as he has purchased an Inverter Air Conditioner from the O.P-1. On receiving a Complaint from the Complainant the service personnel from O.P-2 came to the Complainant and after inspection removed the defective power supply from the A.C and took with him to find a proper match & service. But he never came again with the above parts to replace in the A.C for which it is now in idle condition. Again it is the duty of the service personnel to issue expert opinion report to the complainant. But the outdoor unit is defective which is clearly drawn from the acknowledgement of service request issued on dtd. 13.08.2018 by the O.P-2.  Here the negligence and carelessness of the O.P-2 towards their customers is clearly understood which amounts to deficiency in service.  Again as per the statements made in the written statements the O.P-3 being a reputed Company for household products he is well supported by the Service centres to provide after sale services to the customers , which manned by qualified and experienced personnel through a large network of Authorised Service Centres. So the O.P-3 is held responsible and answerable for every negligence, discrepancies, deviations or irregularities by the O.P-2. Hence in the present case both the O,P-2 & 3 are responsible for Committing  “Deficiency in Service” to the Complainant U/S 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-1986.  The case is well settled in the matter of M/S Samsung India Electronic . vs. Sambhaji Ramji Patil Umrekar, on 26^th  November, 2013 decided by “State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharastra (CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD)”. Again as the O.P-1 has provided the contact number of the O.P-2 & 3 to the Complainant and helped him in various possible ways, the allegation of deficiency in service on his part is not proved, hence he is discharged from the liabilities.

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective compressor and condenser in the Inverter Air Conditioner to make it run properly with desired cooling within 30(thirty days) of receiving this order. The O,P-2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand)as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.          

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 9^th  day of July-2019 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

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

 

I agree,                                                  I  agree,                                            

 

MEMBER.                                          PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER.(W)

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

 

                                                                       MEMBER.(W)