BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.98 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.03.2015

Date of Decision :20.07.2015

Gian Chand son of Labu Ram aged about 55 years R/o 1098, Buta Mandi, Near Komal Studio, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Vicky Gift Centre, Adda Bhargo Camp, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. M/s Appliances Care Centre, Auth.Samsung Service Centre, St. No.10, Main Road, Avtar Nagar, B/Side T.V.Studio, Near Hotel Regent Park, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd, 7th & 8th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Refrigerator make Samsung for Rs.24,000/- vide invoice No.845 dated 11.6.2013 from opposite party No.1. Warranty of five years was given for above said product by the opposite parties and at the time of sale of said product the opposite party No.1 assured and told the complainant that in case of any complaint or defect if arisen in the said refrigerator, the defect would be removed immediately or the refrigerator would be replaced with new one if the repair is not done to the satisfaction of the complainant. After one and a half year from the date of purchase the above said product became out of order and it became dead. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to approach their service centre/opposite party No.2. The complainant requested the opposite party through their toll free No.180011001 to rectify the defect. An engineer of opposite party No.2 came to check the fault, he opened the door and checked the lower and back portion of refrigerator. After check-up he told the complainant that some wires have been cut by mouse or any other insect which could not be re-joined at the house of the complainant and advised the complainant to bring the refrigerator at the service centre/opposite party No.2. As per his advise the complainant carried the fridge at the service centre. The opposite party No.2 kept the refrigerator with them and issued a job sheet card to complainant. Opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the defect would be rectified and refrigerator would be put in order within seven days and told the complainant to come after seven days. When after seven days the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 to take the refrigerator, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that due to some busy scheduled they could not repair the said refrigerator and further told the complainant to come after 15 days and assured that after 15 days the refrigerator might be rectified and put to order. But when after 15 days the complainant went to take the refrigerator, the opposite party No.2 created same excuse that they remained busy, so, they could not repair the refrigerator and further assured the complainant to come after some days. When after some days, the complainant went to opposite party No.2 to take the refrigerator, the opposite party No.2 made the same excuse and told the complainant that they could not find time to rectify the fault. Despite repeated requests, several visits and so many telephonic talks made by complainant to opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 neither rectified the fault nor replaced it so far. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the refrigerator with new one or to return its price alongwith interest in the event of non repairing it. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant has concealed the material fact that refrigerator in question was out of warranty when the problem arose in the month of February 2015 and also when the present complaint was filed. There is warranty of only one year for the entire refrigerator and additional 4 years warranty of compressor only. In the present case when the complainant lodged complaint at customer care on 26.2.2015 at that time the refrigerator was out of warranty as the refrigerator was purchased on 11.6.2013 as admitted in the complaint. The service engineer of opposite party No.2 visited the premises of complainant on 26.2.2015 and on checking found the internal duct was damaged by rats beyond repair. As the warranty period of one year has already lapsed and damage to the product has been caused by rats and other rodents the product was not covered under warranty. Thus opposite parties are not liable. The opposite party No.2 showed their inability to repair the product as the same was not covered under warranty and due to internal damage caused by rats/rodents, it was beyond repair. But complainant insisted opposite party No.2 to try to repair the product at his cost and expenses and complainant agreed to shift the refrigerator at the premises of opposite party No.2 at his own cost and risk. As opposite party No.2 is still trying to set right the refrigerator complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the true and correct facts from the Forum regarding the exact condition of refrigerator in question. As the warranty period has expired on 10.6.2014 and also due to damage by rats the product was not covered under warranty and repair if any has to be on chargeable basis. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The complainant purchased the refrigerator in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 11.6.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.24000/-. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that after one and a half year from the date of purchase, the above said product became out of order and it became dead. So defect in the refrigerator arose after about one and a half year from the date of purchase. Ex.OP1 is copy of warranty card and as per this document the refrigerator was having a warranty of 12 months and its compressor of 60 months. The complainant has not produced any document to show that entire refrigerator including compressor was carrying warranty of five years. So the defect in the refrigerator occurred after expiry of warranty of one year. It is not case of the complainant that there was any defect in the compressor of the refrigerator. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that after check-up the engineer of opposite party No.2 told him that some wires have been cut by mouse or any other insect which could not be re-joined at his house. Even on the service job sheet Ex.C2 produced by the complainant O/w i.e out of warranty is mentioned. Since, the refrigerator was out of warranty, as such opposite parties No.2 and 3 are not liable to repair it free of cost. Counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 stated at bar that opposite parties No.2 and 3 are ready to repair the refrigerator but on chargeable basis as the refrigerator is out of warranty. In the above circumstance, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties No.2 and 3.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However the complainant may get his refrigerator repaired from opposite parties No.2 and 3 after paying requisite charges. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

20.07.2015 Member Member President