DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2022
Filed on: 03/12/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. NO. 472/2019
COMPLAINANT
Swetha Tensigh, D/o. V.K. Tensingh, 20 B, O2 Zone, Vikaswani, Kakkanad, Kochi 682030.
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY:
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurugram, Haryana 122202.
(Rep. by Adv. K.S. Arun Das, K.S. Arundas &Abheek Saha, KHCAA Chamber No. 450, Near High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam)
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had purchased a Samsung Washing Machine model WW80J5410GS/TL from Samsung Authorized reseller Nandilath in Edappally, Kochi at a discounted rate of INR 36440/- during Onam festival promotions. The MRP of the product was over Rs.45,000/-. The product was delivered on the next day with Samsung sending their representative to unbox and install the same along with demo 2 days later. While installing the machine the complainant had brought to the notice of the technician that the rubber gasket at the opening of the front load machine had a crack patch. The authorized representative said that it does not matter as it would never interfere with the functioning of the machine. After 7 months from the date of purchase the machine started leaking and this water leakage was from the front door. The complainant had contacted the Samsung and had registered a complaint. The opposite party informed that an Rs.2,000/- + service charge almost totalling to Rs.3,000/- would be charged for replacing the gasket. The complainant then opened the warranty card and realized that there is no warranty for rubber gasket as it is mentioned that the rubber gasket is not covered under warranty. The opposite party’s local team was making up amounts for gasket replacement. When the complainant reinstated that this machine was less than a year old, and the warranty is still valid they brought down the service rate to Rs.2,000/-.
When the local technician visited the complainant’s house to check the issue of the washing machine, he moved the machine from different angles to examine the issue. The complainant showed him the warranty card too. The technician concluded that indeed there was no mention that the gasket cannot be replaced under warranty. The water leakage is increasing in large quantities in each and every wash cycle. The matter was again informed to the opposite party. But there was no response. The machine showed no signs of improvement during the wash cycle. A technician came and reported that the problems occurred due to uneven floor service and a stand will rectify the issue, which the complainant did not agree. The complainant states that the machine was placed in the same place since September, 2018 and the complainant’s earlier washing machine was placed at the same space since 2014 and never had an issue. Complainant states that a customer has been stressed for over 4 to 5 months because of their product, their team and their technicians.
Despite repeated requests to replace the machine with the same/similar model the opposite party turned down the complainant’s request. It took 7 months of infinite efforts to finally convince the opposite party of the issue. The complainant states that she had lost her hard earned money, time, efforts, peace of mind, family members’ health etc. because of the deficient action of the opposite party. The opposite party had replaced the rubber gasket of the washing machine for a payment of Rs.3,000/- within the warranty period itself. Despite several requests to replace the machine with similar model, the opposite party turned down the complainant’s request. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking the redressal of her grievances.
2. Notice.
When the case was taken on the file, the Commission issued notice to the opposite party on 11/12/2019. Upon notice from this Commission 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3. Version of 1st opposite party
The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. In the Samsung Washing Machine if some defects are noticed, that will not automatically come within the meaning of manufacturing defect and there may be possibility that the defect that due to mishandling, improper handling or any other reasons also which could be rectified. The complainant raised complaints after one month of usage of the unit and when the service engineer visited the premises of the complainant for addressing the alleged issues, it was found that there is a physical damage to the door of the washing machine and which was not present at the time of initial installation. The service engineer replaced the gasket of the unit free of cost within warranty. The second alleged issue in the unit was reported 10 months from purchase date and local service centre picked up the unit from complainant’s house to the workshop wherein alignment of the unit was done and communicated to the complainant as the unit was defect free but the complainant denied accepting the same and demanded replacement of the unit. Due to repeated demands by the complainant even though he is not entitled to the same, the company obtained Senior Management approval and as goodwill gesture a coupon was also provided to the complainant which was redeemed by the complainant at QRS retail on 22/11/2019. Therefore the 1st opposite party addressed the complainant’s alleged issues even going beyond the warranty terms and conditions and at the cost/expenses of the company and thus there was no deficiency, negligence on the part of the opposite party or its service centre.
For replacement of product, the defect must be manufacturing defect and for proving manufacturing defect expert opinion is essential. There was no manufacturing defects or any defects in the washing machine at the time of sale and no such defects arose due to the manufacturing defects. The 1st opposite party has acted as per the terms and conditions of warranty and in compliance with law. As per the terms and conditions of warranty, replacement/refund of washing machine where no defects were found, was not mentioned in the warranty card. Moreover, no defects/issues due to physical damages, mishandling, improper handling or any other reason and defects which could be rectified, for such situation/condition replacement or refund or compensation is not mentioned in the warranty card as well.
4. Evidence
Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which is marked as Exbt. A1 to A8. Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.
Heard both sides.
We have gone through the complaint, version and documents of both sides.
5. Points for consideration in this case are
1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we consider issue No. (1) and (2) together.
The case of the complainant is that she had purchased a washing machine from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.36,440/- as offer prize during Onam Festival (MRP was over Rs.45,000/-). While installing the same, the complainant had brought to the notice of the Samsung technician that the rubber gasket at the opening of the ‘front load’ machine had a cracked patch which had been brought to the notice of the technician. The technician told that it would never interfere with the functioning of the machine. As a statement coming from the office of opposite party’s technician and not from any resellers associate, the complainant had taken the response positively and was never bothered the crack in the gasket. Within the period of warranty itself (In April, 2019) the front side of the washing machine started leakage and later the washing machine became defunct. The complainant contacted the opposite party so many times to rectify the problem and the opposite party replaced the rubber gasket for payment of Rs.3,000/- within the warranty period itself. Thereafter also the machine had so many problems and the machine was not working properly. The complainant tried to contact the opposite party so many times. But it was in vain. The complainant has sustained heavy losses and sufferings due to the negligent act of the opposite party.
The opposite party’s specific contention is that “they had rectified the defects as and when intimated the complainant. There was no deficiency in service or negligence from the side of the opposite party.”
From the available documents and evidence of the complainant it can be seen that the washing machine became defective within the period of warranty. The complainant sustained heavy loss and hardship due to the negligent act and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party had no case that the defect occurred due to the mishandling of the washing machine by the complainant. So the complainant has to be compensated by the opposite party. Hence Point No. (1) and (2) are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows:
1. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.36,440/- (Rupees thirty six thousand four hundred forty only) to the complainant.
2. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) as compensation and cost of proceedings to the complainant.
The above order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the above order is no complied within one month the amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 20th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. A1: Copy of Invoice
Exbt. A2: Copy of price list of washing machine
Exbt. A3: Copy of Service Record
Exbt. A4: Copy of Bill issued by Sree Swami Vaidhya Gurukulam
Exbt. A5: Copy of resignation letter of the complainant
Exbt. A6: Copy of e-mail communication between the parties
Exbt. A7: Copy of Service Refund Coupon
Exbt. A8: Copy of Tax Inoive
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 472/2019
Order Date: 20/01/2023
