PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

 

Tuesday, 4^th May 2010

 

 

M. Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Venkata Subbaiah,

aged 56 years, Resident of D.No. 2/242, Kondayapalli,

Kadapa, Kadapa District.                                                            ….. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1) Ali Aircondition and Refrigiration Service Point,

2)  Samsung Authorised Service Centre, Gopikrishna Electrnics,

3)  Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its

     Hyderabad.                                                                             ..….. Respondents.  

 

  

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on  3-5-2010 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Lakshmi Kantha, Advocate for R1 and Sri P. Anand, Advocate for R2 & R3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

 

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased one washing machine front door model No. SWF P10EW3/XTL through Vijayalakshmi Electronics, Kadapa. During the month of October 2008 the complainant made a complaint that the washing machine was giving some troubles inside the drum. Then the complainant approached 1^st respondent for getting his washing machine repaired.  The 1^st respondent is a gent of the authorized servicing center for Samsung i.e. respondent No. 2. the 1^st respondent came to the residence of the complainant and opened all parts of the washing machine and informed him that the said machine is developed with problems and the problems will only be rectified at his mechanic shop. Then the 1^st respondent took the washing machine from upstairs of the house of the complainant and issued a receipt No. 2096, dt.3-11-2008 mentioning the reason for taking the machine for repair. At the time of handing over the washing machine to 1^st respondent the machine appears new and at bottom 2 to 3 inches sheet was rested.   The complainant asked the 1^st respondent to remove it and tinker it and paint it. 

 

3.                The 1^st respondent told to the complainant that for getting rectification of defects of the machine, the said machine will be sent to authorized servicing centre at Tirupati i.e. to 2^nd respondent and he collected Rs. 1,000/- and did not issue any receipt for that. When days go on the complainant contacted with 1^st respondent and also with respondents 1 & 2 also. The respondents informed the complainant that panel board of the washing machine was misplaced and at the time of transportation from his house to service point of 1^st respondent. The complainant came to know through the 2^nd respondent by name Mr. Ramakrishna and Narayana, who is the area Manager of 2^nd respondent that the 1^st respondent did not send the machine to servicing centre of 2^nd respondent and kept it in a store room and not handled smoothly.   All parts get damaged one by one and replaced with another old removed machine parts.  At last, the complainant went and saw condition of machine at store room of 1^st respondent. The said machine is in a damaged condition, inside drum welded; panel board changed with old one and painted all sides worstly. The complainant submits that the cost of the washing machine is Rs. 23,000/-. Both respondents successfully dragged the matter for months together.   Till date the said washing machine is in the custody of 1^st respondent. The cause of negligence on the part of the respondents the washing machine was damage completely. Till date the respondents failed to get the machine repaired. They even failed to hand over the said machine to the complainant.   Due to non-availability of washing machine, family members of the complainant suffered a lot physically and mentally. 

 

4.                Having vexed with the attitude of the respondents 1 & 2 the complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 20-3-2009 calling upon them to hand over the washing machine in a good condition with its original parts and also pay Rs. 10,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and physical strain to him. Though the respondents received the said legal notice, they even failed to give any reply. The complainant has also sent a notice to the 3^rd respondent who is the supervisor of the respondents 1 & 2 calling upon him to return his washing machine or to pay compensation. The 3^rd respondent also failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. The entire 3^rd respondent utterly failed to provide proper services to the complainant and thereby caused mental agony apart from financial loss to the complainant. All the respondents are liable to pay compensate the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

 

5.                R1 filed a counter stating that, he never worked as agent of O.P. No. 2 by running authorized servicing centre for Samsung appliances. It is also false that this respondent went to the house of complainant and opened all parts of the washing machine and informed him that the said machine is developed with problems and the problems will only be rectified at their mechanic shop and that the machine was transmitted from house of the complainant to this respondents shop and in that connection this respondent  issued a receipt No. 2096, dt. 3-11-2008, reporting reasons for taking the machine fro repair.   No such receipt is issued by this respondent and the alleged receipt filed by the complainant is created for the purpose of filing false complaint. If at all it were really issued by this respondent it could certainly have the seal of Ali Aircondition and Refrigeration Service point, and signature of the 1^st respondent, on that ground alone complaint is liable to be dismissed. Other allegations made in paragraphs No. 2 & 3 are all utter false and only created for purpose of gaining unlawful gain from the respondents by taking advantage of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

 

6.                This respondent further humbly submits that he is running shop by name Ali Air-condition and Refrigeration Service Point, Kadapa. Further submits that the complainant approached this respondent for repair of the subject matter washing machine. The complainant himself brought the machine to the shop and gave it for the repair by asking to do the tinkering works to the machine. It is specifically mentioned to the complainant that the machine is almost in ruin condition due to long period usage, therefore, the works that will be done to it may not bring satisfaction as like new machines performance.   After repair he took the machine and paid Rs. 150/- for tinkering work and Rs. 150/- for works done for repair the machine. Two days after the repair he approached this respondent and complained about sounds that are coming from the machine during its working condition. It is explained to the complainant that the due to the long usage of machine, not satisfied with the explanation, complainant turned ferocious and made galata and left the premises of the shop. If for any reason complainant really paid Rs. 1000/- to this respondent, he ought to have taken the receipt from this respondent as complainant is in habit of taking receipts for every transaction, that itself speaks about the volumes of the complainants case.   If this respondent did not return the machine, the complainant certainly could have complained to the police authorities, since, there was no such incident, he did not do so.  So, 1^st respondent prays that the Hon’ble may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

 

7.                R2 filed a counter adopted by R3 with a memo.   The R2 is authorized service centre of Samsung Electronics Pvt. Ltd., whenever the customers approached our service centre with regard to problems of goods first we have go through the following details:- 1) Whether the instrument was purchased from our authorized sales centre. 2) Whether the instrument was within the warranty or out of warranty and 3) What is the problem of instrument.   All these points are noted in the job sheet and after receiving the instrument we issued a job sheet this job sheet contains customer signature and signature of our concern staff but in this case we never issued any job sheet and the complainant never approached to our service centre and we never issued any cash receipt which is filed by the complainant as document No. 1.  it is clearly shows that the complainant never approached this respondent and not handed over any washing machine hence there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of respondents 2 & 3 on this ground alone the complaint ma be dismissed against respondents 2 & 3..

 

8.                Further submitted that the complainant stated that the washing machine was handed over to the 1^st respondent that he is our agent is utter false and respondents 2 & 3 never appointed any agent much less than the respondent No. 1 i.e. total stranger to our service centre. The complainant reveals that the total transaction is in between the complainant and respondent No. 1 and not respondents 2 & 3. Further the complainant stated in para – 2 of the complaint at last the complainant went and saw condition of machine at store room of respondent No. 1 the said machine is in a damaged condition. So it is clearly shows that the complainant has not handed over the washing machine and he never approached to the respondent No. 2. Further submits that as per version of the complainant he purchased washing machine in the year 2003 is subject to proof as per terms and conditions of warranty the warranty period is two years from the date of purchase i.e. the warranty will coverup 2005 only. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of respondents 2 & 3 and the complainant not entitled for any relief as the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

 

9.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

 

10.              On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 was marked.     

 

11.              Point No. 1 & 2  Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of cash/credit bill issued by the Vijayalakshmi Electronics, Kadapa, dt. 1-12-2003 for Rs. 23,000/-. Ex. A2 is the cash receipt No. 2096, dt. 3-11-2008 issued by respondent No. 2. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of legal notice dt. 20-3-2009 from complainant’s advocate to R1 & R2. Ex. A4 is two postal acknowledgment cards and two postal receipts. Ex. A5 is the notice from complainant to R3. Ex. A6 is the postal receipt. Ex. B1 is the customer details cum warranty card.  The complainant purchased washing machine front door model No. SWF P10EW3/XTL through Vijayalakshmi Electronics, Kadapa in the year 2003 for Rs. 23,000/-. During the month of October 2008 the complainant made a complaint that the washing machine was giving some troubles inside machine.  The complainant approached respondent No. 1 for getting his washing machine repaired. The respondent No. 1 came to the residence of the complainant and opened all parts of the washing machine and informed him that the said machine is developed with problems and only be rectified at his mechanic shop and repaired the washing machine and issued a receipt bearing No. 2096, dt. 3-11-2008 to the complainant. The complainant asked the respondent No. 1 to remove the rust of the bottom and tinkering and painting of the bottom.   Respondent No. 1 specifically told to the complainant that the machine is almost in ruin condition due to long period of usage and he charged Rs. 150/- for tinkering work and Rs. 150/- for other repairs. The respondent No. 1 send the machine to the service center and kept it in a store room and he replaced the damaged parts with another old removed parts and he did not handed over the possession to the complainant till today. The washing machine was in a damaged condition in store room of the respondent No. 1. It shows negligence on the part of the respondent No1. 

 

12.              Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed partly, directing the 1^st respondent to handover the possession of the washing machine to the complainant, in a working condition, without any costs and compensation. Rest of the claim is dismissed against R2 & R3.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 4^th May 2010

 

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                           For Respondent :         NIL

 

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

Ex. A1         X/c of cash/credit bill issued by the Vijayalakshmi Electronics,

Kadapa, dt. 1-12-2003.

Ex. A2         Cash receipt No. 2096, dt. 3-11-2008 issued by respondent No. 2. 

Ex. A3         X/c of legal notice dt. 20-3-2009 from complainant’s advocate to

R1 & R2. 

Ex. A4         Two postal acknowledgment cards and two postal receipts. 

Ex. A5         Legal notice from complainant to R3. 

Ex. A6         Postal receipt. 

 

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -          

 

B1 is the customer details cum warranty card.   

 

                             1) Sri G. Trivikram Singh,  Advocates for complainant.

2) Sri G. Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for R1.

3) Sri P. Anand, Advocate, for R2 & R3.  

 

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :