BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Wednesday, 31st August 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 29/ 2016
Mummadi Sreenivasula Reddy, S/o M. Subba Reddy,
aged 42 years, R/at D.No. 6/969-C-D-6 (1), Vidyut Nagar,
Opp. Nalnda High School,
Rajampet and town, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Padmapriya Home Appliances, Rep. by its
Proprietor, New Generation Shoppe, Sivalayam Street,
Rajampet – 516115, YSR District.
2. M/s Sravani Electronics, Authorized Servicing Centre Samsung,
Rep. by its Managing Partner, D.No. 20/1046,
Co-operative Colony, Near Nehru Park,
Kadapa city, YSR District.
3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,
Samsung Customer Satisfaction Cell, Rep. by its
Managing Director, 2nd floor, tower – C, Vipul Tech Square,
Sector – 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana – 122002. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 23-8-2016 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and R1 appeared as in person and Smt. S. Lalitha, Advocate for R3 and R2 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to refund Rs. 22,300/- towards costs of Samsung Air Conditioner with interest @ 24% p.a. from 8-9-2011 till the date of realization and to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the Complainant purchased a Samsung Air conditioner from R1 pertaining to R3 company for Rs. 22,300/- on 8-9-2011 under a bill bearing No. 221. R2 is the authorized service center of R3. The air conditioner bears 12 months comprehensive warranty and 60 months warranty for compressor from the date of purchase. Within 10 months of purchase of the said Air conditioner started cooling problem and on that the Complainant lodged a complaint to the Respondents and the same was registered as 4136166425, dt. 7-8-2012. R2 attended the problem and filled gas and changed adaptor spare part. For a few days the said problem was subsided again the same problem was occurred. The Complainant gave a complaints thereafter i.e. on 1-4-2013, 8-4-2013, 28-3-2015, 25-5-2015, 7-6-2015, 15-3-2016 and 6-4-2016 to the Respondents that the Respondents failed to rectify the defect. The Respondents sued to attend to rectify the defect and continued to refill gas by collecting Rs. 1,800/- for each visit. R2 orally informed the Complainant that there is gas leakage problem in Air conditioner. Thus there is manufacturing defect and the Respondents are liable to rectify the same but failed to rectify the defect of cooling problem. Thus the services of Respondents are deficient. Hence, they are liable to refund the value of the air Conditioner as prayed. Therefore, the complaint.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter admitting that the Complainant purchased Air conditioner pertaining to R3 company from his shop on 8-9-2011 as pleaded by the Complainant and Complainant informed him that there is cooling problem with the Air conditioner purchased. Further contended that he suggested to Complainant to contact the authorized service center for R3 at Kadapa and also informed that R3 alone is liable to replace or rectify the defect if any and he is no way concerned with the defects of Air conditioner and not deficiency in service on his part and complaint is liable to be dismissed against him.
4. Respondent No. 3 filed written version denying the deficiency of service and manufacturing defect in the Air conditioner. It is further contended that the product of Samsung are the highest quality and they will never sell any product which is defective including manufacturing defects as they have very strong Research and Development base. The initial complaint by Complainant was on 7-8-2012 and that was rectified. Subsequently, Complainant lodged several complaints but did not allow the technical staff of the Respondent to attend repairs and rectify the problems with condenser on the ground that the same shall be done from free of cost. The warranty of air conditioner is 12 months and the warranty of compressor is 60 months. Warranty of air conditioner is expired by 9-9-2012. The condenser falls under the comprehensive warranty of 12 months. Beyond 12 months it is chargeable except in case of any problem with compressor. As there is no problem with compressor any repairs beyond the warranty period are chargeable. Therefore, the Complainant has to pay for the same. But the Complainant has not come forward to pay Rs. 9,800/- for replacement of spare part i.e. condenser beyond warranty period. As the air conditioner is beyond warranty and requires replacement of spare part the Complainant was asked to pay money for which he refused. Thus there is neither deficiency in service nor manufacturing defects in the air conditioner. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Respondent No. 2 remained exparte.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled refund of amount of Air Conditioner from the Respondents as prayed?
- To what relief?
7. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 & A2 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the Respondents.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused record and considered written arguments filed by R3.
9. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for Complainant contended that there is manufacturing defect in cooling system of Air conditioner and the same was brought to the notice of Respondent on 7-8-2012 and thereafter also several times and though the defect in the first time rectified but the same continued. Therefore, there is manufacturing defect. Hence, the Respondents are liable to refund the amount apart from paying amount for mental agony.
10. On the other hand counsel for R3 contended that Samsung is reputed company as they have Research and Development base and no defective product will be sold. It is further contended that the Air Conditioner warranty period, cooling problem reported on 7-8-2012 by the Complainant and that was attended and thereafter no complaint by Complainant till 01-4-2013 and the Complainant wanted to change spare part i.e. condenser which costs of Rs. 9,800/-. But he did not agree to pay the amount as the warranty period was over and every time they attended the problem of Complainant and reported no deficiency of service on their part. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
11. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for R3. There is no dispute in this case that the Complainant purchased a Samsung air conditioner from the company of R3 from the shop of R1 under Ex. A1 bill on 8-9-2011 and the said Air conditioner has one year comprehensive warranty and five years warranty for compressor as per Ex. A2. According to the Complainant the problem arose in cooling of the air conditioner. After 10 months it was brought to the notice of Respondents on 7-8-2012 and the technical staff of Respondents attended and rectified the problem by refilling the gas and changed adaptor spare part. According, to the Complainant the air conditioner was working in good condition. Thereafter complaint by Complainant is on 1-4-2013 stating again problem came to the air conditioner. Thereafter the technical staff visited the Complainant air conditioner and done general services and it was working in good condition. Again on 28-3-2015 and subsequently on 15-3-2016 and 6-4-2016 the Complainant lodged complaints with the Respondents stating for replacement of spare parts required. The Respondents attended the Complainant Air conditioner and found a spare part i.e. condenser is required and its costs is Rs. 9,800/- to replace the same but the Complainant refused to pay the same. Since, the condenser comes under comprehensive warranty and the comprehensive warranty expired to the Air Conditioner by 9-9-2012, the Respondents directed the Complainant to pay costs of the spare part for replacement of the same. However, the Complainant refused to pay the amount for replacement of the air conditioner which is outside warranty period. Hence, the Respondent not replaced the spare part as requested by the Complainant. As seen from pleadings of both parties R3 staff attended whenever the Complainant reported problem of the air conditioner and rectified the defect in first stage within the warranty period regarding cooling problem of air conditioner and thereafter advised the Complainant beyond warranty period to replace the defect part on payment of cost of spare part for which the Complainant not agreed to pay cost of the spare part. Therefore, the same was not replaced. Thus there is no deficiency in service in attending the problem of Air Conditioner of Complainant by R3, with regarding manufacturing defect of Air conditioner except pleading the Complainant has not placed any convincing evidence that the air conditioner supplied to him by R1 manufactured by R3 is defective. Therefore, it cannot be held that there is manufacturing defect in Air Conditioner purchased by Complainant under Ex. A1. As such we hold that the Complainant is not entitled for refund of costs of the Air Conditioner from the Respondents as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
12. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 31st August 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 cash receipt for Rs. 22,300/- dt. 8-9-2011 bearing No. 221, issued by
R1 in favour of Complainant
Ex. A2 Customer details cum warranty card issued by the respondent in favour
of the ocm dt. 8-9-2011.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents : - NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for Complainant
- Smt. S. Lalitha, Advocate for R3
- Padmapriya Home Appliances, Rep. by its Proprietor, New Generation Shoppe, Sivalayam Street, Rajampet – 516115, YSR District.
- M/s Sravani Electronics, Authorized Servicing Centre Samsung,
Rep. by its Managing Partner, D.No. 20/1046, Co-operative
Colony, Near Nehru Park, Kadapa city, YSR District.
B.V.P.
