State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Samsung India Electronic Ltd., vs Sambhaji Ramji Patil Umrekar, on 26 November, 2013
1 F.A.No.:378/2008
Date of filing :05.04.2008
Date of order :26.11.2013
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :378 OF 2008
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 79 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :NANDED.
1. M/s Samsung India Electronic Ltd.,
7th & 8th floor, I.F.C.I. Tower,
61, Neharu Palace, New Delhi,
Through its authorised Signatory.
2. M/s Suhani Enterprises,
Samsung authorised Service Centre,
101 & 102, Kailash Market,
Station Road, Padampura,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Sambhaji Ramji Patil Umrekar,
R/o Manohar Bhavan, Phule Nagar,
Nanded.
2. M/s Ashtavinayak Electronic,
6-7, Shukla Complex,
Near ITI, Hotel Godavari,
Nanded. Through its Proprietor. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.T.Agrawal for appellants, None for respondents.
2 F.A.No.:378/2008O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 26th November 2013) Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. M/s Samsung India Electronic Ltd., New Delhi & M/s Suhani Enterprises, Aurangabad original opponent Nos.1 & 2 appellant herein challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded on 1.2.2008 while deciding consumer complaint No.79/2007.
2. The facts in nutshell are as under.
Complainant Sambhaji Ramji Patil Umrekar, Phule Nagar, Nanded had purchased 1.5 ton split air conditioner of Samsung company on 8.5.2004 for consideration of Rs.35,000/-.The warranty of said air conditioner was for 5 years i.e. up to 7.5.2009. Till May- 2005 air conditioner was worked properly but in the May-2005 air conditioner was not working properly. Therefore complainant approached to opponent No. 3/respondent No.2 i.e. M/s Ashtavinayak Electronic, Nanded. Therefore the mechanic by name Ravi & Prashant visited the house of complainant and checked the defects. At that time it was informed by said mechanic that compressor of said air conditioner is not working properly therefore it was required to be changed. Then both the mechanics asked for bill of air conditioner with warranty card and assured complainant that within 5-6 days new compressor will be installed. But said was not complied. Then after 20 days one mechanic visited the house of complainant and demanded Rs.1600/- for filling gas in the compressor. Thereafter said mechanic tried to install said compressor in the air conditioner but he could not install it successfully. Thereafter opponent No.2 took the compressor in their service centre which was not returned to the complainant till the filing of complaint. Therefore complainant issued legal notice dated 10.7.2006 and asked the appellant to refund price 3 F.A.No.:378/2008 of air conditioner with 12% interest and Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony. Said notice was also not replied by the appellant therefore complainant approached to Forum.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim on the ground that warranty of air conditioner is of only one year and not of five years as alleged by the complainant. After getting complaint from complainant about non-working of air conditioner the mechanic of appellant visited the house of complainant and after filling of gas air conditioner was working properly. No mechanic of the appellant any time promised to the complainant about replacement of compressor as there is no responsibility of the appellant about replacement of compressor as there is no warranty regarding the same.
4. After hearing both the parties District Consumer Forum directed the appellant to replace air-conditioner of 1.5 ton split within a month and directed appellant to pay 12% interest on Rs.35,000/- from 4.8.2005 till realisation of amount. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.5000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- for cost.
5. Dissatisfied with the order original opponent No.1 & 2 came in appeal.
6. Adv.Shri.S.T.Agrawal appeared for appellant. Notice issued to the respondent is returned with the endorsement "refused". It is therefore held that respondent is served with notice. Therefore appeal proceeded exparte against the respondents. Adv.Agrawal filed written notes of argument. It is submitted by Adv.Agrawal that it is an admitted fact that complainant purchased 1.5 ton air conditioner for consideration of Rs.35,000/-. It is also admitted fact that in May 2005 air conditioner was not working properly. Therefore mechanic of appellant visited the house of complainant and after refilling gas in the compressor air conditioner was working properly. But 4 F.A.No.:378/2008 complainant though get air conditioner repaired demanded refund of price of air conditioner after using air conditioner near about 1& 1/2 years. After thorough repair of air conditioner complainant was asked to take delivery of air conditioner but he refused to take delivery of air conditioner and only harping on demand of refund of price with huge compensation. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant. It is further submitted by Adv.Agrawal that complainant did not produce any expert evidence on record to prove that air conditioner was suffered from any manufacturing defects. Therefore there is no question of replacing of new air conditioner in place of old air conditioner and refund of price as claimed by complainant. District Consumer Forum did not consider the fact and evidence in right prospective while allowing the complaint. Hence appeal be allowed.
7. We thus heard submission of Adv.Agrawal and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that complainant had purchased air conditioner for consideration of Rs.35,000/-. It is also admitted fact that after one year of the purchase of air conditioner it got some trouble. Therefore mechanic from the appellant visited the house of complainant and after filling gas in the compressor air conditioner started working. Even thereafter air conditioner was taken to service centre for thorough check up and repair. Complainant issued legal notice dated 10.7.2006. In that notice it is mentioned by the complainant that in June 2005 first time air conditioner was not working properly. Therefore he approached to appellant and mechanic from service centre of the appellant visited the house of complainant and tried to repair the said air conditioner but they could not repair it successfully. Therefore air conditioner was lastly taken to the service centre for the repair. When the complainant contacted service centre at Aurangabad he was assured on telephone that on or before 13.7.2005 all defects in the air conditioner will be corrected and he will be given possession of air conditioner. But till the date of 5 F.A.No.:378/2008 notice i.e. on 10.7.2006 air conditioner was not delivered. Therefore by legal notice he demanded refund of price of air conditioner. Even thereafter on 20.7.2006 complainant was promised by the appellant that he will get price of air conditioner with some compensation. Therefore again on 12.9.2006 complainant issued legal notice and claimed refund of price of air conditioner with compensation. It seems that appellant though made promise did not perform their duty. Contention of appellant that even after repair of air conditioner complainant did not take delivery of the air conditioner and claimed refund of price with huge compensation cannot be accepted as not single notice issued by the appellant to the complainant for taking delivery of repaired air conditioner. In our view appellants are liable for deficiency in service. District Consumer Forum rightly appreciated the facts and evidence while allowing the complaint. We are therefore did not want to disturb the reasoning recorded by the Forum. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- K.B.Gawali, Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane