Haryana

Karnal

CC/532/2020

Randeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Khetarpal

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 532 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.26.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:15.03.2023

 

Randeep son of Shri Satnam Singh, resident of VPO Ranwar, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Samsung Service Centre plot no.20,21, 22 Asa Ram Market near Union bank Model Town Karnal.

 

2.     Samsung through its Chairman/Managing Director/Authorized Representatives having its registered office at 6^th floor centre, Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite party no.1 exparte.

    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that complainant purchased a Refrigerator model no.RR26T389YRBIHL, vide invoice no.996 dated 11.07.2020 from the OP no.1 and paid Rs.20,000/-. After the purchase of said refrigerator, the complainant started using the unit as per guidelines and instructions of the manufacturer, but just after few days of its purchase, the said refrigerator has started creating problems. The cooling in the refrigerator becomes low and there started coming moisture on all the items placed in the refrigerator. Complainant lodged a complaint on 19.10.2020 and service engineer of OP no.1 come to the house of complainant and checked the refrigerator and admitted that the abovesaid problem is in rare case and occurs in one of the lakhs of the cases and same is not repairable and required to be replaced the unit and also the freezer of the refrigerator is also punctured and they will try to remove the defect. Service engineer told the complainant that refrigerator will have to be brought to the service centre situated at Model Town Karnal. Complainant took the fridge to the service centre on 24.10.2020 and OP repaired the same and called to collect the refrigerator and it was surprise for the complainant to see the fridge that there were holes in the body of fridge and for it was in a burnt condition and it was asked by the engineer of the OP but no satisfactory reply was given by the engineer of the OP. Moreover, it was astonished that they have charged Rs.6500/- for this repair work and the compelling circumstances the complainant pay the same whereas the fridge is in warranty period. Complainant again approached to the OPs and reported the same issue of moisture and low cooling but nothing was done by the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. Complainant made several complaints to OPs and requested to replace the unit but all in vain. OPs have sold a defective unit to the complainant and are not ready to resolve the problem or to replace the unit. Complainant requested the OPs several times via phone to replace the unit or to refund the cost of the unit but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 18.01.2021 of the Commission

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the averments of complaint regarding alleged defect reported to be non-repairable are completely wrong and denied. It is further pleaded that the refrigerator of complainant has gone out of warranty due to damage in freezer. The engineer checked and found a hole in the freezer of the fridge. The complainant is trying to get benefits of his own wrong. In fact, the complainant in regards to complaint regarding the refrigerator in question approached the OP and reported low cooling issue. The engineer of the OP visited the premises of complainant and checked the refrigerator and found that the freezer section of refrigerator is punctured/damaged. The engineer told the complainant that the Refrigerator is out of warranty due to damage and as per the conditions of warranty policy, the repair will be provided on paid basis. On first instance, the complainant refused to pay the charges of repair, but lateron, the complainant agreed for paid repair and accordingly, a job sheet no.4312977900 was created on 31.10.2020 and the refrigerator of complainant got repaired and after paying the charges of repair, the complainant took the delivery of his refrigerator to his full satisfaction. After repair, complainant again approached to OP and reported again no cooling issue. Engineer of OP checked the refrigerator, but no such defect was found and the refrigerator was found completely fine. The engineer told to complainant that there is no defect in the refrigerator and also created a job sheet no.4313684971 and it has been mentioned in the job sheet by the engineer as report as No Defect Found but complainant inspired with his ill will to grab replacement/refund illegally, filled the present false complaint based on frivolous grounds. The OP has provided the services to complainant upto the satisfaction of complainant and a job sheet endorsed by the complainant has been placed on record, there is no defect in the refrigerator. It is denied that there was any burnt in the fridge and only welding spots which are unavoidable and are nothing but a normal repair work which is quite obvious during the course of repair. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of payment receipt Ex.C2, photographs Ex.C3 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 19.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajiv Gupta Director Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of Vikram Kumar Engineer Ex.OP2/A, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP1, copy of damaged pic Ex.OP2, copy of jobsheet dated 31.10.2020 Ex.OP3, copy of repair invoice dated 31.10.2020 Ex.OP4, copies of emails dated 11.05.2020, 11.07.2020 and 11.09.2020 Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP7, copy of job sheet dated 06.11.2020 Ex.OP8, copy of technical report Ex.OP9, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP10, compressor pics Ex.OP11 and Ex.OP12, serial number of compressor Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on 17.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a Refrigerator from the OP no.1. After few days of its purchase, the said refrigerator started creating problems. Complainant lodged a complaint on 19.10.2020 and service engineer of OP no.1 come to the house of complainant and checked the refrigerator and pointed out that the problem occurred in the refrigerator is not repairable. Complainant took the fridge to the service centre on 24.10.2020 and OP repaired the same and charged Rs.6500/-. At the time of taking the fridge, complainant saw that there was a hole in the body of fridge and it was in a burnt condition and the problem in the fridge remained as it is. Complainant made several complaints to OPs and requested to replace the unit or to refund the cost of the unit but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that refrigerator in question has gone out of warranty due to damage in freezer at the hands of the complainant. The engineer checked and found a hole in the freezer of the fridge. On the request of complainant, refrigerator got repaired and after paying the charges of repair, the complainant took the delivery of his refrigerator to his full satisfaction. After repair, complainant again approached to OP and reported again no cooling issue. Engineer of OP checked the refrigerator, but no such defect was found in the refrigerator and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           The unit in question was having manufacturing defect during the warranty period. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing. The refrigerator purchased on 11.07.2020 and complainant lodged the complaint on 19.10.2020. The engineer checked and found a hole in the freezer of the fridge.  The OP has taken a plea that the refrigerator in question has got a hole in the freezer due to wrongful handling by the complainant, due to which the refrigerator in question is out of warranty. To prove its version OP has placed on file affidavit of Rajiv Gupta Director Ex.OPW1/A, affidavit of Vikram Kumar Engineer Ex.OP2/A, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP1, copy of damaged pic Ex.OP2, copy of jobsheet dated 31.10.2020 Ex.OP3, copy of repair invoice dated 31.10.2020 Ex.OP4, copies of emails dated 11.05.2020, 11.07.2020 and 11.09.2020 Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP7, copy of job sheet dated 06.11.2020 Ex.OP8, copy of technical report Ex.OP9, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP10, compressor pics Ex.OP11 and Ex.OP12, serial number of compressor Ex.OP13.

12.           Furthermore, the Service Engineer in his affidavit specifically mentioned that unit is damaged due to hole/puncture in the freezer of unit. The unit of the complainant was not covered under warranty due to warranty exclusion.  It is also evident from the photograph of freezer of the refrigerator in question, the hole exists in the freezer and possibility of the hole in the freezer while removing the frozen ice by using screwdriver or sharp object cannot be rule out. No expert report with regard to manufacturing defect placed on file by the complainant to prove his version.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.03.2023                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                        Member                             Member