Delhi

East Delhi

CC/213/2017

RANJAN NATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY SALES - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2019

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092

                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no            213/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  06/07/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 27/08/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          30/08/2019  

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Rajan Nath   

R/o  196, Gagan Vihar, Delhi 110051  ………………..……….…Complainant                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-M/s Vijay Sales     

 A-18, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi 110092  

2- M/s Samsung India electronics Ltd.    

20-24rth Floor Two Horizon Centre,

Golf Course Road, sec. 43,

DLF Phase V, Gurugram- 122002……………………………………Opponents

                                      

Complainant’s Advocate -                  Mr Vikramaditya Bhaskar 

Opponent’s 1                                        Authorised Agent

Opponent 2 Advocate                         Mr Prashant Arora c/o Kapoor & Co. Advo.

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh        President

                         Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                                    

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case -

  

 Complainant purchased Samsung Refrigerator model RT54FBSL for a sum of Rs 41,400/- from OP1 on 08/01/2013 (Ex CW1/1) on one year standard warranty. On 15/01/2013, fridge developed low cooling problem, so contacted OP2 whose service technician checked and found that cooling was low due to gas leakage, so gas was filled. Again after some month, cooling stopped, so after complaining OP2, service engineer again filled gas. Complainant stated that cooling problem was developing repeatedly vide complaints dated 15/07/2013, 17/04/2014, 19/06/2015, 14/07/2015, 22/02/2016, 01/12/2016, 26/12/2016, 06/02/2017, 17&24/02/2017 vide Ex CW1/2 to 7.  

 

 

It was stated that on repeated complaining, OP2 offered 40% depreciation amount of total cost as the said fridge was not repairable, so under pressure, accepted 40 % depreciation amount from OP2 on 24/03/2017 (Ex CW1/17). Despite of accepting depreciation amount, received another email from OP2 on 27/03/2017 that “complainant had refused to accept the depreciation value, so claim was closed.”

 

It was stated that despite of informing OP2 about acceptance of depreciation value, no response was received, so sent legal notice for refunding cost of the fridge as had manufacturing defect for leakage of gas from the compressor number of times. OP2 replied but neither refunded amount of fridge nor replaced. Thus, complaint was filed claiming the cost of the fridge Rs 41,400/- with 17% interest per annum totaling interest amount Rs 30,000/-and Rs 4511/-paid to the service engineer for service charges. Also claimed Rs 65,000/-as loss for medicines and food time to time and compensation Rs 41,400/- for harassment.

 

Authorised representative of OP1/seller, Mr Sonu Singh submitted written statement and specifically denied all the allegations against them. It was stated that OP1 being a dealer of the said product and the said fridge was checked and installed at the house of complainant and had run almost six months well without any problem. It was stated that OP2 as a manufacturer and service provider, so OP2 was responsible. Complaints pertaining to low cooling was received for which complainant was advised to contact OP2 who was the manufacturer and service provider. Thus OP1 had no liability in providing services or warranty.   

 

OP2/ manufacturer submitted written statement and totally denied all allegations put in complaint. It was admitted that the said Fridge was purchased from OP1 as per Ex CW1/1 and worked well up to six months. It was admitted that number of complaints were received from complainant which were during warranty period, but timely services were provided and even gas was filled all the time till warranty tenure  was  existing  and thereafter service charges were  taken  as  per  company’s  terms  and  conditions  which  was  evident  from  job  sheet (Ex OPW2/1), but nowhere manufacturing defect was ever noticed. Thus claimed amount for refund of fridge cost and compensation does not arise. Hence, claimed amount for compensation and refund of the cost of fridge was illegal demand from the complainant.

 

OP2 also cited few judgments for their defence as Sushila Automobiles Ltd. vs Dr Birendra Narain & others, 3(2010) CPJ 130 (NC), where it was held that except expert opinion pertaining to manufacturing defects, there would be no liability of manufacturer to replace or refund the cost of the product under warranty terms and conditions (Ex OPW2/Anne. A). OP also submitted job sheets (Ex OPW2/B colly). OP2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder to both OPs written statements and denied all the replies submitted. It was stated that OP1 sold defective refrigerator and so was responsible to replace. Complainant denied all the replies of OP2 specifically as the fridge had any manufacturing defect of gas leakage every month and so OP2 had to replace or refund the cost of the Fridge. He also submitted evidences on his own affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidences were correct and true as stated in complaint and the said fridge had manufacturing defect, but OP2 not replaced or refunded the cost of the fridge.  .  

 

OP1 submitted their evidence on affidavit through their authorised representative Mr Sonu Kumar Singh who affirmed that the said fridge was checked properly by the complainant and was installed by the company’s service engineer had run for six months without any defects, but thereafter complaint was received for cooling problems. On inspection, it was found that gas had leaked so was filled free of cost as evident from job sheets on record as fridge was under warranty. As far as charges taken by the service agent pertains to the service rendered after the expiry of warranty tenure as per the company’s terms and conditions under standard one year warranty provided by the manufacturer/OP2. So, complainant had failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the said fridge. As there was no manufacturing defect, question for replacement of fridge or refunding its cost does not arise.

 

 

Arguments were heard and order was reserved after perusing material on record.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record.  It was admitted by OP1 that the said Fridge was purchased by the complainant, but denied to have any manufacturing defect as it was checked and installed by their service engineer. It was also seen that there was no evidence of manufacturing defect. In absence of any concrete evidence from complainant, it is thus observed that the Fridge had no manufacturing defect. OP1 being the seller so had no liability.

 

Before coming to the conclusion, we have perused some citations as under-

 1-Tata Motors vs Deepak Goyal, RP 2309/2008NC,

2-Vikram Bajaj vs Hind Motors India Ltd & others, 2009IICLT 670 NC,

3-Kamal Kishore vs Electronics Corporation of India, RP 3029/2010 NC,

4-Shiv Prasad Paper Industries vs Senior Machinery Co., I (2006) CPJ 92 NC,

where it was held that ‘en equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired. Replacement was only done if manufacturing defect was proved by expert report or seen evidently”.

 

As refrigerator was manufactured by OP2 and had warranty left, so providing service liability of OP2 exist. More so, product had one year standard warranty for whole body except compressor which has five years manufacturing warranty. It was seen from number of complaints on record which showed gas leakage almost every months meaning thereby there must be some defect in the compressor. Though compressor warranty was neither pressed by the complainant nor defended or raised by OP2, so we come to the conclusion that OP2 was deficient in finding out defect in compressor by which gas was leaking repeatedly.

Now we direct OP2 to replace the compressor with gas filled within 30 days from receiving this order and shall extend six months warranty on fridge from the date of handing over the fridge in good running condition. We also award compensation of Rs 10,000/- for harassment caused to the complainant in lodging complaints repeatedly. This will include litigation charges also. The entire award shall be complied within the time essence. If OP2 fails to comply as per order, complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest on the entire awarded amount till realization. If said fridge is not repairable as stated in OP2 written statement, refund “40 % depreciation amount on actual value of the fridge”, but compensation and other conditions will remain the same.  

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Section 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20 (1) of the CPR.

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                   Shri Sukhdev Singh

            Member                                                                                                                   President