By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is that: -
1. The complainant is running a petty shop at Kottakkal, Kottoor. He approached third opposite party to purchase a refrigerator to his shop. When the requirement was revealed to the third opposite party, he suggested a double door refrigerator made of first opposite party will serve the purpose of the complainant. He said that the Refrigerator will be able to maintain cooling effect for hours even during power failure. The cost was Rs.23,500/- and it was purchased on 18/04/2016. The compressor of the refrigerator has got 10 years warranty’. The complainant was with confidence that he can use the same for long period and he took maxim care in dealing with refrigerator. He complied all the instructions as prescribed by the opposite parties. On 4/09/2019 due to want of cooling effect the complainant registered complaint and availed service from the authorized Samsung service centre Tirur. The technician who examined the refrigerator said to the complainant that the reason for the complaint was leaking of gas and it has covered more than 3 and half years after purchase and so the cost for gas filling Rs.2,600/- has to be paid by the complainant. The service person assured that there is 3 months guaranty for his service. But the refrigerator within fifteen days itself again became defective. The complainant informed the service centre and at that time a person came from opposite party to the complainant and on examining the refrigerator it was told that the refrigerator cannot be rectified from the shop of complainant but to be taken to the service centre at Tirur, Alinchuvadu. The complainant shifted the refrigerator to the service centre spending 800/- rupees. The complainant submits that so far, the opposite party did not rectify the defect and not return the refrigerator. It was told by the opposite party that there is a defect to the condenser and cannot be rectified at all. The submission of the complainant is that if the opposite party could have noticed defects at the first time of service itself, he could have saved at least Rs.2,600/-, the amount paid towards the service charge and cost of the gas. Thereafter the complainant was informed that, when the defect of product cannot be rectified as a matter of policy the complainant will be given a coupon worth 30% of cost of the product and using the same the complainant is at liberty to purchase any other product of the Samsung Company. The complainant informed all these communications to the third opposite party and then they sought time to resolve the issue. Thereafter the complainant received Information from the third opposite party that the company has offered an amount but third opposite party is prepared to give additional 3,000/- rupees than that of offer made by the company and also told that he is at liberty to purchase a product of Samsung Company for that cost at his pleasure.
2. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 &3 and also alleges defect to the product of the first opposite party. The instructions of the opposite parties to purchase defective products of the same opposite parties amounts unfair trade practice also. The prayer of the complainant is that to issue a defect free double door refrigerator to the complainant or to refund the cost of Rs. 27,000/- he incurred in the transaction and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice opposite party No.1 and 3 entered appearance and filed version. The notice issued to the opposite party No.2 was received but not turned up, hence set exparte.
4. The contention of the opposite party No.1 is that the complaint is baseless, devoid of merits and to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
5. The opposite party is a company to serve the customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sale service and there is no intend to deny the service under any circumstances. It is submitted that in case after sale service/quality issue is brought to the notice of the opposite party or service centre the same will be immediately corrected as a matter of priority. The submission of the opposite party is that if the complainant had approached the service centre of the first opposite party rightfully with correct facts prompt service would have been provided but in this complaint instead of preparing that to approached before this commission with ill motive and so the complaint deserve dismissal. The opposite party submitted that mere submission about manufacturing defect against the product is not sufficient to determine the defect but needs proper analysis test report to confirm the same and so the contention of the opposite party is that complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect. The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant could not establish the extent of loss he actually met and the complaint is one ill motivated and to obtain unfair advantage. The opposite party also alleges that complaint is without any just or reasonable basis and also amounts abuse of process of law, misuse of machinery provided for redressal of genuine grievances and so to be dismissed.
6. The opposite party admitted the purchase of refrigerator on 14/04/2016 for Rs.23,500/- from the third opposite party manufactured by 1st opposite party. The opposite party also admitted that on 13/09/2019 the refrigerator had faced complaint and the unit was given for repair and collected gas filling charge of Rs.2,600/-. But it is denied that the opposite party collected transporting charge of 850/- from the complainant, not repaired the defect, complainant was offered 30% of the depreciated amount which can be used for purchasing another Samsung product, the dealer informed that they are ready to pay Rs. 3,000 along with 30% refund amount are denied by the opposite party and called to prove the same by complainant.
7. The averment in the complaint that the unit had become defective after 3 and half years from the date of purchase itself even though the unit had 10 years warranty, he was compelled to use the unit again caused huge financial loss and hardship to the complainant and so need to replace the unit or to refund the price along with compensation of 1,00,000/- are denied by the opposite party.
8. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had purchased fridge as stated in the complaint and thereafter 3 and half years the complainant approached the service Centre with complaint of no cooling effect and on inspection it was found that no complaint and so the complaint was closed. The complainant again reported the same complaint and on inspection that occasion it was found leak of gas and accordingly service was provided on chargeable basis since it was occurred out of warranty period
9. On 15/10/2019 the complainant approached opposite party, the service centre with a complaint of no cooling effect. The complaint was duly registered and on inspection it was found that cannot be repaired but the complainant was offered reasonable depreciated amount of the invoice price since the unit was used by the complainant for more than 3 and half years but the complainant was not prepared to agree for the said amount and so ultimately complaint was closed.
10. The complaint reported were promptly attend by the service centre but the complaint was no cooling effect which was due to the fault on compressor and so the unit was irreparable and so as per the warranty condition only option was to refund the price of the unit after deducting depreciation and so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
11. The submission of the opposite party is that as per condition of warranty issues arising during the warranty period will be repaired free of cost and all requires outside the warranty period will be done on chargeable basis. It is also submitted by the opposite party that there is no manufacturing defect in the unit and also there is no any act of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of 1st opposite party. Hence the submission of the first opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled for any relief in view of the facts and circumstances.
12. The third opposite party filed version in tune with the first opposite party denying the averments and allegations contained in the complaint. They have got a contention, the complaint is legally not maintainable, filed without bonofide and also on an experimental basis, to be dismissed with cost. The opposite party admitted that complainant purchased fridge from the opposite party on 18/04/2016 and which has got one year warranty and also warranty for 10 years for the compressor. But the contentions in complaint that while the complainant approached third opposite party shop demanding double door fridge it was told that the fridge will be working for hours during power failure. The averment that fridge worth Rs.23,500/- and which was paid as money is not admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party denied that on 04/09/2019 the refrigerator became defective and a complaint was booked at Tirur Samsung service centre, a representative came from opposite party , there was a gas leak and that was the reason for defect , the opposite party realized 2,600/- rupees from the complainant for servicing and thereby filling gas , it was told three months warranty for the service , the fridge again became defective within 15 days, the person came from the opposite party said that the fridge cannot be repaired from the spot but to be taken to the authorized service centre at the expense of complainant. Complainant paid Rs.800/- and accordingly it was taken to the service centre which yet not repaired , it was reported the condenser is defective and cannot be repaired , if it was reported at the time of first repair the complainant need not have spent 2,600/- rupees and which was caused due to the negligence of the service centre , the policy of the opposite party in such situation to provide 30% cash coupon to the customer, the complainant ought to have purchased another product of the Samsung using the cash coupon and it was told from the service centre, when the above fact submitted before the third opposite party they requested two days’ time to solve the issue and thereafter offered to pay 3,000/-rupees in addition to the offer of the Samsung company and the complainant is allowed to purchase any product of the Samsung company using the cash are not correct and so the opposite party denied the entire statements.
13. The complainant approached the opposite party on 08/09/2019 to register a complaint before the service provider by opposite party No.3. The remaining contentions are beyond the knowledge of the third opposite party. The opposite party submitted that they have not spoken anything about cash coupon and which is a mal advice given to the complainant by somebody. The opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.27,000/-along with compensation of 1,00,000/- to the complainant. The complaint is being filed on an experimental basis deserves a dismissal. The opposite party also submitted that the fridge has got only warranty for one year and the complainant was using the same in his shop in a careless manner and that resulted in defects. The opposite party submitted that he is not liable to repair the fridge which became defective due to careless manner of use and also after expiry of warranty period. The complainant is liable to establish the loss sustained to him and also the defects caused to the refrigerator. The opposite party submitted that if at all any defect is caused to the refrigerator this opposite party is not at all liable to provide any relief as prayed by the complainant.
14. The complainant and opposite party one and three filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is copy of retail invoice worth Rs.23,615/- dated 18/04/2016. Ext. A2 is copy of customer details card issued on 18/04/2016. Ex.t A3 is copy of customer service record dated 13/09/2019. Ext. A4 is a letter issued by R J electronics issued to the complainant dated 25/01/2020. Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. B1 is copy of power of attorney dated 16/05/2018. Ext. B2 is copy of customer service record dated 13/09/2019. Ext. B3 is copy of warranty card.
15. Heard both side, perused affidavits and documents.
The following points arise for the consideration: -
1) Whether the refrigerator is defective one?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3) Relief and cost?
16. Point No.1 &2
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased refrigerator from third opposite party on 18/04/2016 and which is manufactured by 1st opposite party. The said refrigerator reported defective after three years. The defect reported was no cooling effect. He reported the same to the authorized service centre and they deputed a person to provide service to the complainant. His suggestion was due to gas leak the refrigerator is defective and the solution is filling of gas. Since the complaint reported after warranty period the complainant was asked to pay cost of gas and labor charge worth Rs.2,600/-. The submission of the complainant is that the service man assured him there is three months warranty for his service. But within 15 days the refrigerator again became defective. On that occasion the service centre deputed a person who after examining the refrigerator it was asked to take the refrigerator to the service centre. The complainant submitted that from the service centre he was told defect is internal condenser leakage and the repair is not possible. Ext. A4 letter issued by the second opposite party to the complainant dated 25/01/2020 is sufficient to establish the contention of the complainant regarding the defects to the refrigerator. Further, Ext. A3 and A4 is also establish the contention of the complainant regarding the refrigerator as defective and which is irreparable.
17. The third opposite party contended that the warranty for the refrigerator is only for one year. But the complainant submitted that there is 10 years warranty for the compressor the third opposite party has not produced any document to establish his contention regarding the warranty. But the complainant produced Ext. A2 to prove the warranty. On perusal of Ext. A2 there is description regarding the warranty applicable to the refrigerator. So we do not find any merit in the contention of the third opposite party. Ext. B3 substantiate claim of the complainant regarding warranty for refrigerator. It can be seen that if the refrigerator is not working in a fridge, the purpose of a fridge cannot be served.
18. The complainant immediately on notice of defect contacted the opposite party to rectify the defects which can be seen from the customer service record. Ext. B2 and Ext. A3 are one and same which reveals the defect detected as gas leak. It also reveals the service centre realized 2600/- rupees for gas charge and labour cost. The submission of the complainant is that the fridge became defective within two weeks of service on 13/09/2019. Thereafter detection of defect of the refrigerator was internal condenser leakage. So there is merit in the contention of the complaint that the service centre could have find out the right cause of the defect on first occasion itself, so he could have saved Rs.2600/- which he spent first time for repair. So there is reason to hold that the service provided by opposite party was defective. In the circumstances we find that there is deficiency in service and also defect to the refrigerator.
19. Pont No.3
It can be seen that complainant is running a small shop as part of his lively hood. He purchased refrigerator of double door worth Rs.23,500/- with great expectation. He is under the impression that the refrigerator is 10 years compressor warranty. But even after completing three and half years the refrigerator became irreparable. As per the contention of the first opposite party the policy is to provide some amount considering the depreciation value of the product. The second opposite party the service centre issued a letter to the complainant considering the depreciation policy they are prepared to provide Rs.13,160/- to the complainant which includes Rs.3,000/- added to the company offer. The submission of the complainant is that amount of Rs. 13,160/- will not be sufficient to get a double door refrigerator which he is highly required. We find merit in the contention of the complainant since he bought the double door refrigerator for his lively hood purpose. Hence at least refund of the cost of the refrigerator he is required to meet the interest in the complaint. It can be seen that the refrigerator is with the opposite party after taking for the service. The complainant definitely might have suffered a lot of financial problems and mental agony and for that he is to be compensated also. We consider Rs.10,000/- as a reasonable amount as compensation in this complaint. We allow Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
20. In the above fact and circumstance, we allow the complaint as follows: -
1) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.23,500/- to the complainant as the refund value of the defective refrigerator.
2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused financial and other inconveniences to the complainant.
3) The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the above said entire amount till the date of realization.
Dated this 4th day of February, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of retail invoice worth Rs.23,615/- dated 18/04/2016.
Ext.A2: Copy of customer details card issued on 18/04/2016.
Ext A3: Copy of customer service record dated 13/09/2019.
Ext A4: Letter issued by R J electronics issued to the complainant dated 25/01/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of power of attorney dated 16/05/2018.
Ext.B2: Copy of customer service record dated 13/09/2019.
Ext.B3: Copy of warranty card.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
