Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri A.K.Joshi,& D.P.Joshi
Adv. For O.P :- S.K.Mohanty and Others
Date of filing of the Case :-06.02.2018
Date of Order :-27.05.2020
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
The case of the complainant is that, she had purchased a Samsung refrigerator having model No. RR22K287ZS8 from the O.P. 1 on dated 1.8.17 for a consideration of Rs. 19,000/- vide invoice No. 55 dated 1.8.17. After 5 months of its use the complainant found defect in the refrigerator and the refrigerator became completely defunct to which the complainant requested the O.P. 1 for repair or replacement. The complainant alleges that although the product was found defective during warranty period the O.Ps. have not provided with any service. Hence the complaint.
2. Although notice has been served on the O.P.1 neither he appears nor has filed his written version and hence he was set experte vide order dated 24.8.18. In his written version the O.P.2 simply denied the complainant’s allegations and not come up with a specific case.
3. Heard the complainant . After filing written version the O.P.2 is not coming to the Forum on any date to proceed with the case. Perused the complaint petition, written version and documentary evidence available on record. In support of his case the complainant has relied on the Xerox copy of retail invoice and warranty of the product. The O.P.2 has not filed any documents in support of his case.
4. Perused the Retail Invoice issued by the O.P.1 vide invoice No. 55 dated 1.8.17 which shows that the complainant had purchased a Samsung refrigerator on dated 1.8.17 and paid the consideration amount of Rs. 19,000/- to the O.P.1. It is also seen from the warranty card that, the product is warranted by the O.P.2. It is seen from the complaint petition which is supported by an affidavit that, the said refrigerator was found defective after five months of its purchase i.e within warranty period. There is no evidence available on record to show that the O.Ps. have provided any service to the complainant. In Para 3 of the written version the O.P.2 has admitted that the refrigerator is warranted for a period of one year and submitted that the complainant has not claimed service to the authorized service center or has contacted the manufacturer in his toll free number. It is a common practice that the complainant has direct contact with the dealer and hence the complainant has approached the dealer and there is no evidence available on record to show that the dealer O.P.1 has advised the complainant to lodge his complaint before the service center. Hence this cannot be a ground to avoid service.
5. It is evident from these material available on record that, the O.ps. have failed to remove the defects of the refrigerator of the complainant during warranty period for which the same is of no use till date. The O.Ps. are duty bound to provide service during warranty period but the same has not been provided by the O.Ps. which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
6. From the very beginning of its purchase the complainant is unable to use the refrigerator and hence he is entitled to compensation. Since the refrigerator is not in use for a long time it will be proper to pass an order for refund of consideration amount. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
The O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs. 19,000/- ( nineteen thousands ) along with Rs.10,000/- ( Ten Thousands ) towards compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall bear an interest @ 9% P.A till payment.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 27th day of May’ 2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
