Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/42/2013

B.Bhaskar S/o.B.Ramakrishnaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, S.V.Digital (Samsung Plaza), - Opp.Party(s)

S.Hari Prasad

26 Mar 2014

ORDER

                                                                   Date of filing:15.07.2013

                                                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:26.03.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

 

PRESENT:Sri.M.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

                                  

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.42/2013

 

Between

 

B.Bhaskar,

S/o. B.Ramakrishnaiah,

D.No.2-2-235/B, Near Nagalamma Temple,

Manchineellagunta,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                     …..Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.       The Proprietor,

          S.V.Digitial (Samsung Plaza),

          No.17, Nethaji Road,

          Tirupati,

          Chittoor District.

 

2.       The Proprietor,

          Gopi Krishna Samsung Centre,

          Opp. Municipal Park,

          Tirumala By-pass Road,

          Tirupati,

          Chittoor District.                                                        …..Opposite parties.

 

          This complaint coming  before us for final hearing on 12.03.14 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.S.Hari Prasad, counsel for the complainant and Sri.P.Anand, counsel for the opposite party No.2, and opposite party No.1 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

          This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, for not rectifying the defect in the refrigerator.  

2.  The brief facts of the case are:-  The complainant purchased SAMSUNG Refrigerator from opposite party No.1 shop for Rs.17,200/- on 21.03.2013 by paying down payment of Rs.5,750/- and the balance to be paid in 8 equal installments, each installment to be paid is Rs.1,375/- and he paid the entire installments regularly. The said refrigerator got warranty of one year and if any problem arose, the refrigerator can be replaced within one year. It is further submitted that the said refrigerator worked properly hardly for one month and after that the complainant noticed there was no cooling effect in the said refrigerator and he approached the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 entrusted the same to opposite party No.2, who is the authorized service centre. The 2^nd opposite party people came to complainant’s house and took the refrigerator to service centre because there was some gas problem and after two days, the service centre people called the complainant by phone and told that the defect was rectified and asked to take back the refrigerator. When the complainant visited the service centre, he noticed that the problem was still subsisting and the opposite party asked the complainant to take back the refrigerator as it is. The complainant requested the opposite parties 1 and 2 number of times but they refused bluntly to receive the grievances of the complainant though he is having warranty of one year upon the said refrigerator. The complainant further submits that when he called the customer care, the service people told that the complaint has been closed on 18.06.2013 itself and he again requested on 19.06.2013, 20.06.2013 and 21.06.2013 to opposite parties to return the refrigerator in good condition, which is in the warranty period and the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Finally, the complainant caused a legal notice on 22.06.2013 to opposite parties and the opposite parties gave reply to the said notice on 09.07.2013 with all false allegations. Hence, the complainant submits that due to inaction of the opposite parties, he suffered lot of inconvenience because he is having 10 months baby, who needs frequent milk, medicine etc. and the complainant used to store them in the refrigerator for urgent requirement. Hence, opposite parties caused lot of inconvenience to the complainant due to their inaction and hence the complainant filed the present complaint for deficiency of service and prayed to replace with new refrigerator in the place of old one or to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

3.  Notices were served to opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite party No.1 received the notice and remained exparte and opposite party No.2 came into appearance and filed the written version admitting the purchase of the refrigerator and payment made by the complainant. It is further contended that after receiving the complaint, their technician visited the house of the complainant and checked-out the refrigerator  and stated that freezer was damaged due to misuse of the complainant and also stated that the same was agreed by the complainant and with the permission of the complainant only, they took the refrigerator to the service centre and issued a service record on 15.05.2013 and in the said record also, the above mentioned problem was mentioned and after rectifying the same, they have collected Rs.1,500/- for replacing some parts and gas filled and obtained cash receipt dt:17.05.2013. It is further stated that no prudent man can pay any amount within the warranty period and that itself shows that the complainant misused the refrigerator. The opposite party further stated that the complainant again gave a complaint that the refrigerator is not working properly because there is no cooling effect. Immediately their technician attended for service and took the refrigerator to the service centre and issued another service record on 24.06.2013 and after examining the refrigerator, the technician by name Ananth Raj found that there is no defect in the said refrigerator and it is working in good condition and the same was intimated to the complainant. Hence, there is no negligence on their part and also contended that they are ready to produce the refrigerator with the permission of the Forum  for proper examination by an expert and as there is no negligence on their part and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

4.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and opposite party No.2 filed chief affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B4.

5.  On behalf of the complainant and opposite party No.2 written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments.

6.  The points that arise for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant?

(ii).  Whether the refrigerator purchased by the complainant is defective in nature?

(iii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? If so, to what extent?

(iv).  To what relief?

7.  Point Nos.(i) and (ii):- There is no dispute regarding the purchase of refrigerator from the opposite party No.1 shop. After receiving the notice, the opposite party No.1 remained exparte and opposite party No.2 also admitted the purchase of refrigerator and filed the written version. As per the contention of the complainant from one month after the purchase, the said refrigerator was not working properly and there is no cooling effect. Hence, he approached the opposite party No.1 and inturn he entrusted the same to opposite party No.2, who is the authorized service centre of SAMSUNG Refrigerators. The technician of the opposite party No.2 went to the complainant’s house and took the refrigerator to the workshop because it was having some gas problem. After two days, the complainant received a phone call from opposite party No.2 stating that the defect was rectified and the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and there he noticed that the said problem was not rectified and still the problem is continued. After several requests by the complainant, the defects were not rectified and atlast on 22.06.2013 the complainant caused a legal notice. After receiving the notice, the opposite party No.2 sent a reply notice on 09.07.2013 with all false allegations. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint and still the refrigerator is in the custody of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 failed to give any details in that regard. The opposite part No.2 contended that due to the misuse of the freezer by the complainant, the problem might have arised and the same was mentioned in the service record dt:17.05.2013 i.e. Ex.B1 and they have collected Rs.1,500/- (for gas charging) as per Ex.B2 from the complainant, which is not acceptable. The very document filed by the opposite party No.2 i.e. Ex.B1 in column “Defect detected by the Engineer: R.F. no cooling (customer misused freezer)” the words mentioned in brackets, it seems might have added subsequently after filing the complaint. Hence, this is not acceptable. Coming to the next contention of opposite party No.2, the complainant himself stated that he admitted the misuse of the freezer and paid the charges of Rs.1,500/- as per Ex.B2, it clearly shows that high handedness of opposite party No.2, how they squeeze the charges from the customers when the warranty period is subsisting. Hence, the contention of the opposite party No.2 in that regard is not acceptable because without rectifying the defects in the refrigerator, the opposite parties unnecessarily throwing blame on the complainant. The opposite party further contended that if the Hon’ble Forum permits, they are ready to produce the refrigerator before the Hon’ble Forum for examination by any expert mechanic, but neither they have mentioned in the affidavit of evidence nor they have taken any steps to file a petition by seeking permission on this regard. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn as against opposite party No.2. Till now the defects are not rectified and the refrigerator is still with the opposite parties and if at all they would have rectified the defects, they would have returned the refrigerator to the complainant in time with good condition. In this particular case, they failed to do so and this itself clearly shows that the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and it clearly shows that the refrigerator is having a defect, which could not be rectified. Hence, we are of the opinion that the refrigerator purchased by the complainant is defective in nature.

8.  After receiving the notice, the opposite party No.1 failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, this Forum called absent and set exparte, this itself clearly shows that the negligent attitude of the opposite parties. The interest shown by the opposite parties while promoting their goods is not shown at the time of rendering services to the customers. This is again an ‘unfair trade practice’.

9.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our above findings, the complainant is entitled for refund the price of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.17,200/- and entitled for  compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

10.  Point No.(iv):-  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the refrigerator i.e. Rs.17,200/- (Rupees seventeen thousand and two hundred only) and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount of Rs.17,200/- is not paid within 15 days, it will attract interest at 9% per annum, till the date of realization.   

Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 26^th day of March, 2014. 

      Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-                     

Lady Member                                                                          President (FAC).

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: B.Bhaskar (Evidence Affidavit filed.).

RW-1: M.Ramakrishna (Evidence Affidavit filed.).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	21.03.2013	Invoice No.8188.
2	21.03.2013	Warranty card issued by the 1st Opposite Party in favour of  the Complainant.
3	22.06.2013	Office copy of  regd Legal Notice issued by the co to the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties along with postal receipt.
4	26.06.2013	Postal acknowledgement cards from both the 1st & 2nd Opposite Parties.
5.	09.07.2013	Office copy of  reply notice issued by the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties to the Complainant.
6.		Certified copy of bank transaction.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1	15.05.2013	Customer service record.
2	17.05.2013	Duplicate copy of cash receipt vide No.449.
3	24.06.2013	Customer service record.
4	09.07.2013	Office copy of  the reply notice issued by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant.

                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sd/-                 

President (FAC)

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                                 Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.   

 

 

Copies to:

 

1.  The complainant.
2. The opposite parties.