DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2023 

                             Filed on: 05/08/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member                                                                   

C C. No. 170/2022

COMPLAINANT

Prof. (Retd.) Abraham K. Koshy, Kallot, 11/137, Padamugal, Kakkanad 682030.      

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Renil V., Branch Service manager, Samsung Service Centre, Pristage Mall, 2^nd Floor, Edappally
2. Renjith Peter, Proprietor, Ammini Traders (NF Gate), Tripunithura
3. Amal, Area Service Manager, Samsung Service Centre, Pristage Mall, 2^nd Floor, Edappally
4. Sanjith, Branch Sale Manager, Samsung Service Centre, Pristage Mall, 2^nd Floor, Edappally
5. Samsung (I) Electronics Ltd. (Pvt.), 6^th Floor, DLF Centtre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.

(Rep. by Adv. K.S. Arundas, 35, DD AOceano Mall, Near Taj Gateway, Marine Drive, Ernakulam 682011)

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a Samsung fridge on 26/08/2020 from Ammini Traders, N.F gate Thrippunithura for Rs 29,500/-. From the very 1^st day itself the fridge was not giving enough cooling. In August 2021 the fridge stopped working. After the purchase, from October 2020 to April 2021. The complainant’s family were out of Kerala and hence can’t assess the functioning of fridge. From the day of complaint, the complainant was trying to register the complaint but there was no response from the company. The complainant had tried to contact Ammini  Traders but there was no response. On November 24^th the service person from GSS Quick Garage India (P) Ltd, (Samsung Service ) came after 6 days and told to change the sensor in the freezer part. After 7 days he changed the sensor on the freezer part. After 2  days of working again the fridge stopped cooling. On December 16^th another technician came and told the sensors on fridge part to be changed. After 3 days of working, again fridge stopped.

Consumable Materials purchased in all these days got damaged. (Milk, soup, medicine, vegetable all got damaged so many times). Even after the changing the various parts of the fridge it can’t produce result. The fridge is  not functioning about 9 months. They changed all the parts of the fridge. (2 sensors, motherboard, fridge fan and so many parts)

2 times the fridge was taken to the service centre on 07-02-2022 (10 days) and on 26-02-2022 (13 days). Still they couldn’t solve the problem. GSS service head, manager came home and finally gave the report that it can’t be repaired.

During the time of non-working of the fridge the complainant to take a service fridge from outside which he had to pay Rs.2000/- as rent and Rs.1000/- as transportation charges.

The complainant had recorded all evidence of repairs and had sent to the concerned person on time

Hence the complainant approached the Commission to redress his grievances. He has claimed Rs.55,178/- including the cost of Samsung fridge cost, compensation and other reliefs. Etc.

2.       Notice

Notices are issued to the OP from this commission on 21-04-2024. Upon notice OP 1 to 5 appeared and filed their version.

3. Version of opposite party

The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of Consumer Protection Act. In the Samsung refrigerator if some defects are noticed, that will not automatically come within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be possibility for that defect due to mishandling, improper handling, or any other reasons also which could be rectified, and that is why, the Consumer Protection Act contemplates, expert opinion when the defect is not visible. opinion when the defect is not visible, that the complainant alleged that he raised a complainant regarding issues in the refrigerator, and that the service centre replaced the censor of the said unit are hereby denied by the answering opposite parties. That the complainant never approached the service centre for any defects in the said refrigerator nor any repair history is found in the answering O.ps system. That a refrigerator needs to be inspected and diagnosed well before concluding any defects in it but the complainant-never TRO informed or approached the service centre to diagnose the said unit., hence the service centre never got a chance to diagnose and to rectify the defects as alleged by the complainant in the said unit.

The defects alleged by the complainant needs to be inspected by the Service Engineers to conclude the manufacturing defects in the unit. That the damages in unit if occurs due to physical damages and mishandling done by the complainant, in that scenario refund, replacement of the unit were not included in the warranty terms and condition of the said unit.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case C. N. Anantharam vs. Fiat India Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 523, (2011) 1 SCC 460, held that When there is no major or inherent manufacturing defect in vehicle and the problem complained of has been removed; manufacturing company or agent is not under the compulsion to replace the same.

It is submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hereinafter called the said Act.

The complainant had alleged that the said refrigerator was not working properly but suppressed the fact that he never approached the service centre to diagnose or to rectify the defects alleged by the complainant.,

In M. J. Abraham vs. Angel Agencies & Ors., III (2000) CPJ 544, it has been held by the Commission that for replacement of product the defect must be manufacturing defect and for proving manufacturing defects expert opinion is essential.

ELEC Further in Classic Automobiles v/s. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., [1 (2010) CP) 235 (NC)] it has been held that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect was on the complainant and further, it was r necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defects.

There were no manufacturing defects or any defects in the refrigerator at the time of sale and that no such defects arose due to the manufacturing defects.

The Opposite Parties have acted as per the terms and conditions of warranty and in compliance with law. Therefore, as per Sec. 2(11) of Consumer Protection Act these cannot be termed as deficiency in service.

No defects/issues due to water/physical damages, mishandling, improper handling, or any other reasons, and defects which could be rectified, for such situation/condition replacement or repair or refund or compensation is not mentioned in the warranty card as well.

The opposite parties are willing to carry out the necessary repairs and replacement of the parts strictly as per the terms and conditions of the warranty manual.

The complaint is liable to be dismissed  since there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.

4)       Evidence

          Evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A8.  No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.

          The opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.

          Heard.

          The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows:

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade  practice is proved from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant?
2. If so reliefs and costs?

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung Fridge RT34R5538 NV/HL on 26.08.2020 from Ammini Traders, Tripunithura for Rs.29500/- and from the very first day itself the fridge was not working properly, without giving enough cooling.After changing almost all the parts of the fridge, ie., 2 sensors, motherboard, fridge fan etc the fridge was not wording properly.Exbt.A1 is the Tax invoice for the Samsung refrigerator for Rs.29,500/-.After 7 days the complainant had changed the sensor on the freezer part and the opposite party had charged Rs.531/- from the complainant.Exbt.A3 is also a cash receipt issued by the opposite party on 03.02.2022 for servicing the fridge.

Since the fridge became defunct, he hired another fridge from outside which the complainant had to pay Rs.2,000/- as rent and Rs.1,000/- as transportation charges as evidenced from Exbt. A4.

The fridge was taken to the service centre on 07/02/2022 as evidenced by Exbt. A5. Exbt. A7 is the photographs of various technicians trying to repair the fridge. The opposite party in their version states that the complainant had never approached the service centre for any defects. Two times the fridge was taken to the service centre for repair.

In this case the complainant’s fridge became defunct within a short span of its purchase. The complainant had purchased the alleged fridge on 26/08/2020. On 07/02/2022 and on 22/02/2022 the fridge was taken to the service centre for repair works. The problem was not rectified so far.

The opposite party has not produced any contra evidence in this case to prove that the allegations raised by the complainant are not true. Hence we can’t disbelieve the words of the complainant in the instant case.

From the available documents and evidence in this case deficiency of service is proved from the side of the opposite parties. It is not in dispute that the fridge had to undergo change of parts like 2 sensors, motherboard, fridge fan etc within a short span of its purchase. In the above circumstance we don’t find that it is expedient to demand for a technical report to arrive at a finding that the fridge had inherent manufacturing defects. We find that the doctrine of Res-ipsa-loquitor can be made squarely applicable to the facts of this case in arriving at a conclusion that the fridge purchased by the complainant was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. Selling a refrigerator which was having inherent manufacturing defects to a consumer can certainly be taken as an instance of unfair trade practice also. Based on the above observations the issue is found in favour of complainant and the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant .In the result the following orders are passed.

1. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.29,500/- to the complainant towards the price of the defective refrigerator which was supplied to the complainant by the OPs.

2. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the OP.
3. The opposite parties shall payRs.2000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainant

4. The liability of opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.

The opposite parties are liable to make all the payments within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount ordered (1) above shall attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the open commission on this 26^th day of August 2023

Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar