Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1077/2021

Smt. Lekha Shivshankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjana Rao

04 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

 

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1077/2021

 

Lekha Shivshankar D/o. Late Ramakrishna Panicker R/at Flat No.4, Primiere Augusta No.23, Jayabharathi Nagar Banaswadi Main Road Extension Bengaluru 560 033   (By M/s. CrestLaw Patners) V/s	……Appellant
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.   Golf Course Road, Sector-43 DLF PH – V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 202   Samrat Services No. 828, 1st ‘C’ Cross   Nagar, Bengaluru 560 043	..…Respondents

O R D E R

 

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This appeal is filed against the order dated 06.06.2020 passed in C.C.No.1189/2018 on the file of IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.

2. The case of the complainant is that she handed over her Samsung Washing machine to OP No.2, authorised service centre of OP No.1 for effecting repairs.  It is alleged by the complainant that after lapse of two weeks when she contacted OP No.2 regarding the status of rectification and repair, OP No.2 informed complainant that part of washing machine required to be replaced and the rectification process will take another three days to complete and orally sought approval of cost of repair amounting to Rs.3,000/-.  Further on continuous follow up, it was informed that drum of the washing machine requires to be changed as it was rusting and another part of the machine also required to be replaced and it costs Rs.8,000/-.  To extract more money from the complainant owing to the urgency and her dependence on the washing machine, written quotation of cost of repair was not furnished.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs lodged complaint seeking direction to OPs to deliver the rectified washing machine in working condition etc.
3. OP No.1 in their version denied the allegations made by the complainant about not informing repair status.  Inspite of having knowledge about repair estimate as per letter dated 05.06.2018 still the complainant pretending about not received any communication from OP.  They are ready to provide proper service, if complainant pays charges as per repair estimate.
4. On the basis of pleadings and evidence led in by both the parties District Forum dismissed the complaint.
5. Heard the counsel for appellant at length.
6. Washing machine which was purchased in the year 2009, complaining of some defects complainant   approached OPs for effecting repairs in the month of March 2018.  As the OPs were demanding repair charges without written quotation the complaint is filed against the manufacturer and the authorised service centre seeking repairs or in the alternative for replacement.  OP said to have made estimate of Rs.4,500/- on 26.03.2018 seeking for approval.  
7. After 10 years of purchase of washing machine and after expiry of warranty period complainant filed this complaint without paying repair cost of the machine.  District Forum dismissed the complaint against which complainant proceeded to file this appeal.  Complainant used the machine for 10 years no complaint was given.   The complaint raised by the complainant for the reliefs and as the OP estimated repair cost at Rs.4,500/-, which is also brought to the notice of complainant in the reply notice.  Thus, considering all these aspects District Forum has passed the impugned order which is just and proper.  We do not find any merit in the appeal seeking interference.  Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

 

Sd/-

President

Sd/-

Judicial Member

Sd/-

Member

 

CV*