Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/66/2015

P.S.Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Electronics, Samsung Brand Shop - Opp.Party(s)

S.Mahendran

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.04.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  31.10.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 31^st  DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.66/2015

 

 

P.S.Saravanan,

S/o.P.C.Selvaraj,

No.47 Kumarappa Street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Vijay Electronics,

Samsung Brand Shop,

No.14 Coramandel Town,

M.T.H.Road,

Opp.Industrial Estate Bus Terminus,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 058.

 

2.M/s. Hi-Tech Solutions,

Samsung Authorised Service Centre,

Old No.3 New No.8 Ramakrishna Puram,

Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.

 

 

 

3.Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd.,

A.25 Ground Floor Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estates Suites,

New Delhi- 110 044.

 

4.Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

2, 3 & 4^th Floor, Tower “C”,

Gurgaon – 122 009,

Haryana,

Vipul Tech Suqre, Sector 43.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 21.04.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr. K.P.C.Mogan

Counsel for  1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties    : Ex – Parte

 

Counsel for  3^rd & 4^th  Opposite Parties    : M/s. V.V.Giridhar, P.Suresh,

                                                                     K.Senthil

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to replace the product with compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 4^th opposite party is the manufacturer of the Samsung Refrigerator and the 3^rd opposite party is the Corporate Office of the 4^th opposite party. The 1^st opposite is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre of the 4^th opposite party. The complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator from the 1^st opposite party/dealer on 03.08.2014 on payment of Rs.25,600/- with warranty and the product also delivered to him on the same day.

          2. The product developed problems and it was not functioning properly from the date of purchase. The complainant found that the ice-layer formed on the aluminum pipe connected to compressor, over cooling even though the temperature is in the minimum position and further it has developed heavy noises from the door. On 07.08.2014 one technician Mr.Thiruvasagam came from the 2^nd opposite party office for the demo of the product and he tried to pull the back cover of freezer and broken the puff connected to the compressor. Then he left the house without getting the signature for the demo.

          3. The complainant gave a complaint on 08.08.2014 about the mishandling of the technician but no action was taken. We gave another complaint on 25.08.2014 and one Mr.Girija Shankar came and requested the complainant to give a written complaint against the technician. The complainant wanted to replace the defective refrigerator and the 2^nd opposite party sent letter dated 03.09.2014 that they would rectify the defect in the product. However, there was no response, again another compliant on 16.09.2014 was given to Mr.Vinodh, Senior Executive and he said Mr.Paranthaman to attend the fault and he came on 17.09.2014 and took some photographs. Mr.Vinodh closed the complaint dated 18.09.2014 as false and however extended two months warranty. Thereafter, the complainant contacted several persons of the 2^nd opposite party and however there was no response from them and to rectify the defective product. Hence the complainant caused legal notice dated 10.12.2014 and filed this complaint to replace the product with compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

          4. The   opposite parties 1&2 remained absent and  they were set ex-parte.

5.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd & 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          On receipt of the service complaint on 07.08.2014 the service engineer had attended the service call and on inspection, it was found that there was no defect in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant and no such defects as alleged by the complainant was found in the refrigerator. Therefore the service complaint was closed recording that no defect was found in the refrigerator. The puff of the compressor was working in a good condition and no damage was caused to the said part as alleged by the complainant. The entire refrigerator is functioning in a good condition till date would clearly establish that no such spare part was damaged as alleged by the complainant.

          6. Once again the complainant has made a service complaint on 30.08.2014 alleging the same complaint. However when the service engineer had come to inspect the refrigerator, the complainant did not allow the engineer to inspect and do the service to refrigerator and he was insisting on replacement of the refrigerator with a new one. Therefore the service centre of the 2^nd opposite party herein was constrained to send a letter dated 03.09.2014 to the complainant, wherein it was informed that the complainant did not allow the service engineer to provide service to the refrigerator.  However, right from the beginning the complainant was insisting on the replacement of the refrigerator which is not provided in the warranty. Apart from the above, an e-mail dated 25.09.2014 by the senior executive of the 3^rd and 4^th opposite party had sent informing the complainant that it is not possible for replacement or refund of the money as the refrigerator purchased by the complainant was working in good condition. However as a good gesture the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties has extended the warranty by way of two months.

          7. As there is no fault in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant, the question of replacing the same did not arise and there is no question of refund of the amount paid by the complainant towards the purchase of the refrigerator.  If the complainant opts for the de-freezing mode, the ice cubes will fall and if he adjusts the temperature of the refrigerator manually there will not be any problem and adjusting the temperature of the refrigerator is not a service issue and can be adjusted manually according to the requirements of the purchasers. Therefore, as there was no fault in the refrigerator purchased by the complainant and there was no cause of action for the above complaint, the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.    

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

9. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the 4^th opposite party is the manufacturer of the Samsung Refrigerator and the 1^st opposite party is the dealer and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service centre and the 3^rd opposite party is corporate office of the 4^th opposite party.  The complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator  on payment of Rs.25,600/- under Ex.A1 invoice  dated 03.08.2014, from the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the 2^nd opposite party sent a Ex.A2 letter dated 03.09.2014 to the complainant and the customer care sent Ex.A3, Ex.A4 e-mails and Ex.A5 customer service records to the complainant.  

          10. According to the complainant the refrigerator is not functioning properly from the date of purchase and the product is having the defects of ice-layer formed on the aluminum pipe connected to compressor, over cooling even though the temperature is in the minimum position and further it has developed heavy noises from the door and he made complaint and on 07.08.2014 one Mr.Thiruvasagam, technician of the 2^nd opposite party came and broken the puff connecting the compressor and left the house without rectifying the defects in the product and again he made complaint on 08.08.2014 and no action was taken and  another complaint was  given on 25.08.2014,  one Mr.Girija Shankar came and thereafter the complainant gave another complaint on 16.09.2014 to one Mr.Vinodh Senior Executive and on 04.10.2014 one Mrs. Ranjani and also contacted various service persons numbers 1.044.42977000, 2.044.30786400, 3.011-204028200, 4.044-11203911900, 5.011-203921300 and however no one has come and rectified the product and failure to rectify the product itself proves that the product cannot be rectified at all and therefore the complainant wanted replacement of new product or to refund the cost of the product.

          11. The opposite party would contend  that on inspection they found that no defect in the product and to prove the same Ex.A3,Ex.A4 e-mails were sent to the complainant from the customer care and further as a gesture of good will two months warranty was also extended and  there was no fault in the product and prays to dismiss the compliant.

          12. The complainant purchased the product on 03.08.2014. One Mr.Thiruvasagam came from the 2^nd opposite party on 07.08.2014 and attended the problem. According to the complainant the said technician pulled the wires and back cover of the freezer and broken the puff connected to the compressor.  This facts was not denied by the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties in their written version. Ex.A5 is the customer service record and in that also it was mentioned about the defects of more cooling, puff broken, door noise and fruits and vegetables getting rotten. Further it is also mentioned  in Ex A5 that not even a single time repaired and damaged by the Engineer Thiruvasagam and other technicians. Therefore, Ex.A5 customer service record issued by the opposite parties itself proves that the puff was broken by the technician Thiruvasagam of the 2^nd opposite party. Therefore the Ex.A3,Ex.A4 e-mails sent by the customer care that no defect has been found in the product cannot be accepted. Further the opposite parties have not filed any document to show that the defects mentioned in Ex.A5 service record have been rectified by them. Hence the above discussions proves that the product purchased by the complainant is having inherent defects and the same was not rectified  by any of the technicians even though attended the problems by several technicians of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.

          13. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties pleaded in their written version that the complainant did not allow the engineer to inspect and do the service to the product. In Ex.A3 & Ex.A4, it was mentioned that “an extensive diagnosis by our certified technical support engineer, we found that no defect has been found in the product unit”.  Therefore the above statement of the opposite parties proves that the complainant had allowed their technicians to inspect the product and hence it is held that the opposite parties have wrongly stated in their written version that the complainant did not allow the engineer to inspect and in Ex.A2 letter to allow as to repair the unit and this circumstances proves that the product sold to the complainant and manufactured by the 4^th opposite party is having inherent defect.

          14. The learned counsel for the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties specifically argued that the complainant purchased a display piece and it was handled by more public and hence the complainant as a buyer should aware of display piece and hence they have not committed any deficiency in service. The opposite parties well aware that what could have happen to a display piece which was handled by several customers. Having known such a fact, the dealer should have revealed the same to the complainant before selecting that refrigerator for the purchase by him. He did not inform such a fact to him. Therefore these circumstances also conclude that at the time of selling the product the same was having defects.

15. The 2^nd opposite party is a service centre that had not rectified the defects in the product stated by the complainant and his man Thiruvasagam, technician has broken the puff and hence he has committed deficiencies to the complainant. The 4^th opposite party is a manufacturer and the 3^rd opposite party is the corporate office and they were also liable for the deficiencies committed by the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite/dealer who had sold the display piece to the complainant was having defects also committed deficiencies to the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 4 have committed deficiencies in service to the complainant.

16. POINT NO:2

          The service technicians or engineers have not rectified the defects in the product. During arguments the counsel for 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties specifically submitted that even as on date the complainant using the product. The complainant denied the same. Considering the circumstances of the case we reject the argument of the learned counsel and held that the product is in a defective condition. Therefore, we are inclined to order to refund the cost of the product of Rs.25,600/- to the complainant.

          17. The complainant purchased the product on 03.08.2014. From 07.08.2014 onwards the opposite parties technicians unable to rectify the product.  Till December 2014 the complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties and even then the product was not rectified and hence the complainant was unable to use the product and suffered with mental agony is accepted. For the same, it would appropriate to order a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony would meet ends of justice, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4  jointly or severally  are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.25,600/- (Rupees twenty five thousand and six hundred only) towards the cost of the product to the Complainant  and simultaneously the Complainant also should handover the Samsung Refrigerator to the Opposite Parties and further the Opposite Parties  also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 31^st day of October 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.08.2014                   Tax Invoice

Ex.A2 dated 03.09.2014                   2^nd Opposite Party’s letter to the Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 25.09.2014                   E-mail letter from 1^st Customer care to

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A4  dated NIL                    E-mail letter from 1^st Customer care to

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated 03.12.2014                   Opposite Parties customer service Record card

 

Ex.A6 dated 10.12.2014                   Complainant’s legal notice to all the Opposite

                                                    Parties with postal receipts.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  3^rd & 4^th OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      …….. NIL ………

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT