State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd., vs 1.Gundu Shivaiah on 2 February, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No. 306/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN
CC.No.16/2018 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION, M EDAK AT SANGAREDDY.
Between :
Samsung India Electronics Private Limited,
Registered Address,
A-25, Ground Floor,
Front Tower,
Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi-110 044. .... Appellant/
Opposite party no.2
And
1.Gundu Shivaiah, S/o.Jogaiah, H.No.2-34, Chintallapalli Village, Hostel Gadda, Sangareddy Town & District - 502 001, Phone no.83412 02538. ... Respondent/ Complainant
2.Sony Electronics, Am Pm Electronics (P) Limited, (Authorised Retail Unit) P.No.3, Ahmed Nagar, Opp.Govt. ITI, Sangareddy, Phone no.08455 579011. 88850 46011. ... Respondent/ Opposite party no.1 Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.Bhaskar Poluri Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.T.Bhadraiah-R1.
M/s.T.Buchaiah-R2 QUORUM: Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, M ember (M -J), & Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J).
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR.
Order : (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J) ****
01). This is an appeal filed u/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party no.2 being aggrieved by the orders passed in C.C.No.16/2018 vide orders dt.15.3.2019 by the District Consumer Commission, Medak at Sangareddy District wherein, the District Commission had passed the following orders:
"The complaint is allowed in part with the following terms:2
i).We direct the opposite parties no.1 & 2 jointly and severally to repair the air conditioner, free of cost with an extended warranty of one year or else refund the amount of Rs.66,300/- to complainant
ii). The opposite parties no.1 & 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation, for the delay caused by them along with costs of Rs.5,000/- .
Time for compliance is 30 days, failing which the said amount of Rs.20,000/- will attract an interest of 9% p.a. till realisation."
02). For the sake convenience, the parties are referred as complainant opposite parties as arrayed in the original complaint.
03). The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Samsung A.C. from Sony Electronics i.e. opposite party no.1 on 31.3.2017 by paying a total sum of Rs.41,300/- and an additional amount of Rs.600/- was collected by the opposite party no.1, but the said A.C. had not been working since last 7 months and inspite of several phone calls and personal visits, the opposite party failed to reply, as such having no other option, the complaint was filed.
04). Opposite party no.1 filed their written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that they are only authorised retail dealers for the goods manufactured by various companies and the opposite party no.2 who is the manufacturer of the A.C. is only accountable for the complaint made by the complainant. At the time of purchase the invoice was issued with certain terms and conditions. When the complainant approached them with a complaint in A.C., they have directed him to contact opposite party no.2 and also provided toll free number to him. Thereafter the opposite party no.1 came to know that though the opposite party no.2 sent their technician, the complainant informed that the air conditioner was repaired by some unauthorised technicians and did not allow them to repair the unit. The opposite party further submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
05). Opposite party no.2 filed their written version admitting the purchase of A.C. by the complainant from their dealer and 3 had stated that they are leading manufacturers of electronic products including computer peripherals and has got a very strong research and development base and their products are of highest quality and that they never sell any defective products; that upon receiving a complaint from the complainant, the technician had verified and found that there was a rat bite caused to the A.C. and that as per the warranty, the external damage is not covered and the complainant was informed that the repair cost would be around 2,932/- since the warranty does not cover the external damage. But the complainant did not choose to get the A.C. repaired; that only based on the statement of the complainant that there is a manufacturing defect, it cannot be determined merely on submission. The complainant has to prove the manufacturing defect by some expert report and that the present complaint is filed only to enrich himself. The opposite party further relied on several case laws in the written version which are as under:
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India (2000) 6SCC 113 vs. Union of India;
Bihar State Housing Board vs. Prio Ranjan Roy, (1997)6 SCC 487, ;
Sushila Automobiles Ltd. Vs.Dr.Birendra Narain & Ors.
3(2010) CPJ 130 (NC) ;
Tata Motors vs. Rajesh Tyagi and HIM Motors Show Room II I 2014) CPJ 132 (NC);
Bharati Knitting vs. D.H.L.Worldwide (1996) 4 SCC 704 .
06). Before the District Commission, the complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Mr. STPV Ramanuja Charyulu, Manager of opp.party no.1 filed evidence affidavit as RW.1. Mr.Anup Kumar Mathur, Director- Technical support-Customer Satisfaction, Gurgaon of opp.party no.2 filed evidence affidavit as RW.2 and got marked Ex.B1.
The District Commission allowed the complaint as stated supra in para no.1.
07). Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the appellant/opposite party no.2 preferred this appeal with the following grounds:
The order of the District Commission is contrary to law , e vidence and probabilities of the complaint;4
The District Commission failed to consider that there were no detailed pleadings taken in the complaint, except saying that the A.C. stopped working since last 7 months without there being any reason pleaded for the same;
The District Commission failed to consider the submissions made by the appellant/opposite party no.2 that it had received the complaint on 25.9.2017 and 26.12.2017 and both the complaints were attended on 29.9.2017 and 28.12.2017 respectively and necessary action has also been taken to attend the complaint without any loss of time;
The District Commission failed to consider that after thorough examination, it was found that an external damage to cable was done due to rat bite;
The District Commission had wrongly concluded that there was no action taken for repairing the A.C. The District Commission failed to consider that the warranty conditions are binding on both the parties and the complainant had failed to take care of the AC and to protect the cable from rats and pets; The District Commission erred in granting an alternative relief which was never sought by the complainant and had imposed 9% interest without any reason.
Based on the above grounds, the appellant/opposite party no.2 prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of District Commission.
08). Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.
09). Now the points that arise for consideration are i. Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?
ii. To what relief ?
5
10). The specific case of the respondent/complainant is that
he has purchased a Samsung A.C. from the authorised dealer of appellant/opposite party no.2 by paying a sum of Rs.41,300/- with an additional amount of Rs.600/- on 31.3.2017 and that the A.C. has not been functioning since 7 months and that inspite of several requests both on phone and personally, the appellant/opposite party did not choose to repair the same as such filed the complaint with a prayer to either repair the A.C. as the same is within warranty period or to replace the same.
11). Purchase of Samsung A.C. from authorised dealer is not in dispute, payment of Rs.41,300/- is not in dispute. Similarly the period of warranty is also not in dispute. The only ground on which the appellant/opposite party no.2 had opposed the complaint is that upon complaint received from the respondent/complainant their technicians have visited the place of respondent/complainant and found that the A.C. was not functioning due to external damage i.e. rat bite to the wires and that the external damage is not covered under the warranty and gave an estimate of repair as Rs.2,932/-, but however the respondent/complainant has not come forward to get it repaired, as such there is no deficiency on their part.
The respondent/complainant filed Exs.A1 to A3. Except these documents no other document is filed by the respondent/complainant to prove that the A.C. did not have any external damage. When the appellant/opposite party no.2 is specifically pleading that the damage caused to the A.C is external, the burden shifts on the respondent/complainant to prove that the A.C did not suffer any external damage. Further the respondent/complainant had contended that the A.C. is not functioning since last 7 months, but however does not disclose from which date the A.C. stopped functioning, whether it is 7 months from the date of purchase or from the date of installation. Further it is not the case of the respondent/complainant that he got it repaired from other technician and incurred certain expenses. No prudent person would remain silent for 7 months without getting the A.C. repaired. Under Ex.A4 the respondent/complainant had filed a letter dt.9.3.2018 i.e. 4 days prior to the expiry of the warranty period. We fail to understand 6 why the respondent/complainant had not addressed any letter prior to 9.3.2018.
The counsel for appellant/opposite party no.2 had drawn our attention to warranty conditions ( Warranty doe s not cover repair due to external factors/mediums/date types) under Ex.A2 wherein it has been specifically made clear that the warranty does not cover the external damage. Merely because the respondent/complainant has addressed a letter within the warranty period that itself will not prove that the product suffered a manufacturing defect; the respondent/complainant who has come up with a case of manufacturing defect has to prove it with substantial evidence, without there being any expert opinion that the A.C. suffered manufacturing defect the appellant/opposite party cannot be made liable. The District Commission has erred in not considering this aspect that the respondent/complainant who has come to the Court with a case of manufacturing defect had failed to prove the same with substantial evidence. The District Commission without any evidence had went ahead by awarding huge compensation and repair the A.C. free of cost with extended warranty of one year or alternatively to repay the amount of Rs.66,300/-, without there being any proof that the respondent/complainant incurred the expenses of Rs.66,300/-.
Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that the District Commission had committed a grave error by not considering the facts and evidences in proper perspective and passed the order erroneously. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
12). In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Medak, Sangareddy passed in C.C.No.16/2018 dt.15.3.2019. Accordingly the complaint no.16/2018 stands dismissed.
The appellant/opposite party no.2 is at liberty to withdraw the statutory amount deposited before this Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER(J) M EMBER(NJ)
-----------------------------------------
Dated : 02.02.2024