DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

CC No. 202 of 07-09-2020

Decided on :11-4-2023

Rohit Kumar Tayal aged about 33 years S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar R/o #44, Ward No.5, Royal Estate Colony, Near Kutia Pull, Rampura Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

​........Complainant

Versus

1. Dhillon Enterprises, Opposite Old P.W.D. Office, Bus Stand Road, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul District Bathinda through its Prop. Tejpal Singh.

2. Tejpal Singh Proprietor of Dhillon Enterprises, Opposite Old P.W.D. Office, Bus Stand Road, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul District Bathinda.

3. The C.E.O/ M.D., Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, 20th-24^th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122202.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM:-

Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. Manish Kumar, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Opposite party No.1 Ex-parte.

Opposite party No.2 deleted.

Sh. Kuljit Pal Sharma, for OP No.3

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President:-

1. The complainant Rohit Kumar Tayal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Dhillon Enterprises and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased Refrigerator 'Samsung Refrigerator' (RT 65C7058BS, Sr.No. 0DVC4DBMC00455) vide Cash Memo Invoice No. GST/18-19/4171 dated 18/03/2020 worth Rs. 71,000/- from opposite party No. 1 who is authorised dealer of opposite party No. 3.

3. It is alleged that the freezer of the said product/refrigerator is not working properly since the day of its purchase. The complainant lodged a complaint with opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 gave assurance that the freezer of the said Refrigerator will be repaired within 8 hours but nobody came to repair the said Refrigerator. On the next day the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 then opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not bother about the complaint of the complainant rather lingered on the matter on one or other pretext.

4. It is alleged that the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 that due to summer season, it is very difficult to survive without ice/cold water, but no satisfactory reply was given by opposite parties. The complainant searched online customer care number of the opposite party No. 3 and on 27th of March 2020 lodged a complaint vide Complaint No. 4301337113 on Toll Free Number regarding the same and customer care executive of the opposite party No.3 gave the assurance to the complainant that the freezer of the said Refrigerator will be repaired within 24 hours. The complainant waited for some days but nobody came to check or repair the refrigerator. Then again complainant lodged a complaint regarding the same on 29th May 2020 Vide Complaint No. 4303088611. Then two employees of opposite party No. 3 came after two-three days and checked the freezer of the said Refrigerator. They said that don't use or open the refrigerator for 8 hours. The complainant obeyed the instructions given by the employees of the opposite party No.3 but no fruitful result was obtained. The complainant once again approached the opposite party No. 3 by lodging a fresh complaint on 23^rd of June 2020 vide Compliant No. 4304644423 then another two employees of the opposite party No.3 came and said that this is the manufacturing defect and they will forward the compliant to their higher officials because the defect is irreparable. They also took signatures of the complainant on some papers by saying that these will be forwarded to the Company, and the refrigerator in question will be replaced with new one as the refrigerator is under Guarantee.

5. It is further alleged that it is regrettable that all the opposite parties neither took any action in this regard nor repaired/replaced the said Refrigerator till date. However, the complainant visited the shop of the opposite party No.1 regularly and also made requests on customer care number of the opposite party No. 3 again and again that his Refrigerator be repaired/ replaced but all in vain. The complainant got served legal notice upon the opposite parties in this regard. The opposite party No.3 sent reply dated 11.08.2020 to the complainant through his authorised signatory. The reply of the legal notice was sent beyond the period of the legal notice. Opposite party No.3 taken stand in its reply that no defects have been observed in the refrigerator. Opposite party No.3, on one side, is claiming that no defects have been observed in the refrigerator by their technician and on the other side, employees of the opposite party No.3 had applied the tape on the door of the refrigerator and also said that this is the manufacturing defect and they will forward the compliant to their higher officials because the defect is irreparable, which, itself, proves that the stand taken by opposite party No.3 in reply dated 11.08.2020 is totally false and pure outcome of malafide intentions, which amounts to malpractice and unfair trade practice.

6. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.71,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from 18.3.2020 onwards till the date of receipt of refund and its realization ; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensaton and Rs.31,000/- as litigation expenses.

7. Registered notice of complaint was sent to the opposite parties, but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No.1.

8. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the array of the opposite parties.

9. Opposite party No.3 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. No cause of action has arisen to complainant.

10. It has been pleaded that the refrigerator in question is perfectly working as per the report of service engineer. The first call was registered on 27-03-2020 which was regarding the installation and Demo of the product. The service engineer installed the refrigerator at the desired place at the house of complainant and gave demo regarding the working of the refrigerator. The first complaint was lodged on 29-05-2020 regarding low cooling in Freezer, the visiting service engineer checked the refrigerator and there was no fault and only temperature setting was required which was done by the service engineer. Thereafter complaint was lodged on 16-06-2020, 16-07-2020 and 28-07-2020 and on all 3 occasions the service engineer visited and checked the refrigerator but no such alleged defect of low cooling was found. Rather refrigerator was perfectly working on all the 3 occasions, on 28-07-2020 senior engineer visited and checked the refrigerator and no defect was found in the refrigerator. The said engineer prepared the technical report dated 6-08-2020 wherein he opined that refrigerator is working OK and there is no defect in the product. But complainant for the reason best known to him kept on insisting for replacement of the refrigerator. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

11. Further preliminary objections are that the present complaint has been filed with mischievous intentions thereby enabling the complainant to enrich him at the cost of opposite party. As per the record of opposite party, complainant as and when has lodged complaint the same was duly attended by the service engineer, but no defect was found in the refrigerator and the product in question is perfectly working. The complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of vague, evasive and false allegations. As per the service record the product in question is perfectly working but complainant is deliberately lodging the complaints again and again just to create repeat repair history of the product. On all the 4 complaints lodged by complainant on 29-05-2020, 16-06-2020, 16-07-2020 & 28-07-2020, the service engineer from local service centre visited the house of complainant and checked the refrigerator but there was no defect in the product. The opposite party No. 3 or its authorized service centre has never denied after sales services with regard to the refrigerator in question. The complainant has not set out any legitimate ground entitling him for replacement of refrigerator or refund of price with damages and litigation cost. The complainant has neither alleged an specific irrepairaible manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of expert and qualified person of central Approved Laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law.

12. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 denied that warranty of 5 years was given on the refrigerator. Rather there is comprehensive warranty of one year for the entire refrigerator and additional 4 year warranty is for compressor only. The opposite party No. 3 also denied all other averments of the complainant. In the end, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissed of complaint.

13. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 7.9.2020 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12).

14. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Gupta dated 14.2.2020 (Ex.OP-3/1) and documents (Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/10).

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

16. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

17. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

18. The counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of Tax Invoice and messages through which complaints were lodged with the opposite parties whereas on the other hand, Customer Service Record Cards Ex. OP-3/2 to Ex. OP-3/4 show that defect in the refrigerator was rectified by the opposite parties and complainant has signed said Service Record Cards without any objections and further complaint. However, this Commission is of the view that since the refrigerator of the complainant is not working properly inspite of defects having been removed, as such, it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to have repaired the refrigerator of the complainant free of cost. Since there is no expert report regarding alleged manufacturing defect in the refrigerator, as such, order of replacement of refrigertor cannot be made at this stage.

19. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite paerties No. 1 & 3 are directed to repair the refrigertor of the complainant free of cost to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to complainant for mental harassment, agony and litigation expenses.

20. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties No. 1 & 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

21. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

22. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    11-04-2023

    ( Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member