Haryana

Panchkula

CC/473/2021

RICHA . - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTILITY ENGINEERS. - Opp.Party(s)

TAJINDER SINGH

09 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	473 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	23.11.2021
Date of Decision	:	09.05.2023

 

 

Richa wife of Shri Anil Ranjan, resident of House No.1373, Sector-15, Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Utility Engineers, SCO No.310, Sector-35-B, Chandigarh through its     authorized signatory.

2.     Smart Solutions, (Samsung Service Center) Plot No.160, Industrial     Area, Phase-2, Panchkula through its authorized signatory.

3.     Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 20^th to 24^th  Floor,  Two Horizon    Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector-43, Gurugram-    122202 through its authorized signatory.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

       

For the Parties:   Sh.Surinder Chaudhory, Advocate for the complainant.  

                        Sh.Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2022.

                        Ms.Jyoti Rani, Advocate for OP No.3.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that a Refrigerator manufactured by the OP No.3, having model no.RS21HUTPN was purchased by the complainant for a valuable consideration of Rs.77,000/- vide invoice no.900 dated 06.08.2023 with 10 years warranty on the compressor. It is alleged that cooling of the refrigerator was not proper and its performance was not upto the mark. On the advice of the OP No.1, the complainant lodged the complaint on the toll free number of OP No.3 in the month of December, 2019. On 26.12.2020, the officials of the OP No.2 visited the residence of the complainant and checked the said refrigerator and found that the compressor was working properly due to lack of gas in the compressor; the complainant gave her consent for filing of gas in the compressor and after filling the gas in the compressor, the service engineers demanded the amount for the same on the pretext that for filling of the gas and service charges, they used to charge from the customer. Under protest, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.2,662/- vide cash receipt no.6015 dated 26.12.2020. It is alleged that after 2/3 days of filling of the gas in the compressor, the said problem again persisted and this time, there was no cooling in the refrigerator. The complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 and thereupon, service engineer visited the residence of the complainant again  and informed that the refrigerator had to be taken to their workshop for its checking and the complainant had to bear the transportation charges amounting to Rs.500/-. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP No.2 on various occasions but he put off the matter on one pretext or the other and told him (complainant) that the refrigerator had become garbage and it could not be rectified. The complainant requested that the compressor of the refrigerator was within warranty and hence, the same be replaced along with refrigerator but the OPs had totally refused to replace the compressor or the refrigerator. The complainant has served a legal notice dated 09.03.2021 upon the OPs through registered post but all in vain.  Due to the act and conduct of OPs No.1 to 3, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hand; suppressed the true material facts; no locus standi to file the present complaint; no cause of action and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder. It is submitted that OP No.1 i.e. Utility Engineers is retailer/ dealer only and the OP No.1 had sold the Samsung Refrigerator on 06.08.2013 to the complainant. It is submitted that the above said refrigerator was duly checked by the complainant and after her full satisfaction, she had purchased the said refrigerator. The OP no.3 is the manufacturer of the said product and provided one year warranty for the refrigerator and five year warranty for compressor of the said refrigerator and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty policy issued by OP no.3. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

                Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through process server, received back served but none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.2, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 07.01.2022.

                Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false; no cause of action and the complainant has not come with clean hands. It is submitted that alleged defect in the refrigerator cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant and that a proper analysis test report is required to confirm the same. It is submitted that proper services were provided to the complainant as when he requested. It is also submitted that the complainant approached the company on 28.12.2012 vide call no. 43170191889 and reported no cooling problem in the product in question. The engineer of company visited the premises of the complainant and checked & resolved the issue by filling the gas in the compressor and the refrigerator started working fine. It is submitted that as per the warranty policy, the charging of gas is payable and is not under warranty or free of cost. The complainant again approached it on 08.01.2021 and reported weak cooling in the said product; but the said call was rescheduled for later on request of the complainant. Again on 27.01.2021, on the complaint lodged by her, the service engineer checked the refrigerator and found that there is an Internal Gas Leakage issue in it. It is averred that it is a fact that during the span of time, the usability and novelty of a product goes down after use of product for a long time of more than eight years. It is further submitted that company provides one year warranty on the said product and five years warranty only for the compressor of the unit from the date of purchase of unit and also warranty means, in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per company policy and warranty of the unit is subject to some conditions and the warranty of the unit becomes void  on liquid logged/water logging, physically damage, serial no.missing, tampering and mishandling/burnt etc. It is alleged that there is no refund policy and the OP No.3 offered a commercial solution for the alleged unit to complainant which, was declined by her; so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 3.            To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-1/A and close the evidence. The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-3/A along with documents as Annexure R-3/1 to R-3/5 and close the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant has tendered the internet generated information qua warranty of the refrigerator, which is taken on record as ‘Mark A’ for the adjudication of the complaint in a proper and fair manner.

                The learned counsel on behalf of the OP no.3 has tendered the internet generated information qua warranty of the refrigerator, which is taken on record as Mark ‘X’ for the adjudication of the complaint in a proper and fair manner.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for complainant and OPs No.1 & 3 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             The core issue involved in the adjudication of the present complaint is qua the duration of the warranty as provided by OPs, on the of the refrigerator in question. As per complainant, there was warranty of 10 years, as per information derived by her from internet vide Mark ‘A’, whereas according to the OPs No.1 to 3, the refrigerator bearing model no.RS21HUTPN as sold to the complainant vide invoice dated 06.08.2013 was having warranty of 5 years.

                During arguments, the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit of the complainant(Annexure C-A) and contended that the refrigerator in question, having warranty of 10 years, had become defective during the warranty period and thus, the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1, while controverting the contentions of the complainant qua warranty of the refrigerator in question, reiterated the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-1/A) and contended that the compressor of the refrigerator was given warranty of 5 years only and that both the parties i.e. consumer on the one side and the seller as well as manufacturer of the product in question on the other side, are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty clause and thus, the learned counsel has prayed that the complaint  is liable to be dismissed being baseless and meritless.  

7.             The OP No.2, who is authorized service station of manufacturer(OP No.3), has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2022 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant against it go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.             The learned counsel on behalf of OP No.3, while reiterating the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit (Annexure R-3/A) contended that the compressor of the refrigerator, having model no.RS21HUTPN, which was sold to the complainant vide invoice dated 06.08.2013(Annexure C-1) was provided the warranty of five years. To rebut the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant qua the refrigerator having 10 years warranty as per information derived from internet vide Mark ‘A’, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Mark ‘X’, as generated from internet, wherein the warranty of 5 years has been shown to have been given on the compressor of the refrigerator having model no.RS21HUTPN1/XTL silver. It is further argued that the product in question was utilized by the complainant for more than 8 years without any problem. It is also contended that the complainant was offered a commercial solution of the issue, which was declined by her and thus, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

9.             Admittedly, the OP No.3, who is the manufacturer of the product in question, was contacted by the complainant on 28.12.2020, 08.01.2021 and 27.01.2021 qua the defect in the refrigerator.  As per the averments made in para no.2 of the affidavit(Annexure R-3/A) as tendered on behalf of the OP No.3, internal gas leakage was found and thus, defect in the compressor of the refrigerator has been admitted. As per Mark ‘A’, warranty of 10 years has been found to have been given qua refrigerator bearing model no.RS21HUTPN1. Though the last word ‘1’ is not found in the model number of the refrigerator as per invoice (Annexure C-1) dated 06.08.2013 but in the cash receipt issued by OP No.2 dated 26.12.2020 as well as the reply dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure R-3/4) given by OP No.3 in response to legal notice(Annexure R-3/3), the refrigerator in question has been shown as having model no. RS21HUTPN1 i.e. with the word ‘1’; thus, there can be no doubt in any manner qua the fact that the model as sold to the complainant was having warranty of 10 years on its compressor.  

10.            Further, the contentions of the learned counsel on behalf of OP No.3 disputing the warranty period of 10 years on the compressor of the refrigerator are not tenable in view of the consistent, specific and categorical assertions of the complainant in her complaint as well as her affidavit(Annexure C-A) that the model in question as sold to her carry a warranty of 10 years on its compressor. In view of the consistent, specific and categorical assertions of the complainant qua the warranty of the product for 10 years, it was imperative upon the OP No.1 as well as OP No.3 to bring on record the exact warranty terms so as to rebut the contentions of the complainant. However, the Ops have preferred not to bring on record the relevant warranty policy qua the model in question of the refrigerator. As discussed above, the complainant has substantiated and corroborated her version vide mark ‘A’, therefore, we have no reason to differ with the complainant qua the warranty of the product in question and thus, we conclude that the product in question was having warranty of 10 years, which had become defective during the warranty period. Further, the plea of the OPs that the cooling capacity of the refrigerator had got diminished due to its usage for more than 7 years by the complainant also carry no weight as the refrigerator had become defective during the warranty period. The refrigerator is lying with OP No.2, who is service centre of OP No.3, since January, 2021.

11.            In view of the factual position discussed above, we have reached at the irresistible conclusion that OPs had been deficient while rendering services to the complainant for which they are liable, jointly and severally to compensate her.

12.            Turning to relief, it is found that the complainant has prayed for the replacement of the refrigerator in question with new one or refund of amount of Rs.77,000/- along with interest. The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment along with Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges have also been claimed. In view of the deficient services rendered by the OPs to the complainant, the OPs are directed to refund the purchase price of the refrigerator in question i.e. Rs.77,000/- to the complainant. Further, the OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigations charges to the complainant.

13.            The OPs No.1  to 3 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 09.05.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav         Dr.Sushma Garg            Satpal

                      Member                     Member                   President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                       Satpal

                                                 President