Recurring Issues With Refrigerator, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung's Authorized Service Provider Liable For Deficiency In Service
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Coolcare Refrigeration, Samsung's authorized service centre liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with the fridge which persisted even...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Coolcare Refrigeration, Samsung's authorized service centre liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with the fridge which persisted even after the replacement of multiple parts.
Brief Facts:
Mr Midhun N.M. (“Complainant”) purchased a fridge from Samsung. The issue arose when the fridge developed a malfunction, prompting the Complainant to request service from Coolcare Refrigeration (“Service Centre”), Samsung's service centre. Upon inspection at the Complainant's home, the service technician recommended replacing certain components of the fridge, providing an estimated cost for the repairs. Despite the replacement of these parts, the fridge's problems persisted. Despite the Complainant's efforts to seek further repairs from Samsung, no resolution was provided. Subsequently, a different technician evaluated the fridge and determined that, yet another component needed replacing, making it the fifth part to require replacement. The Complainant incurred a total expense of Rs. 3386 for these repair attempts. However, despite the expenses and efforts, the fridge remained defective.
Frustrated by the situation, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”). The Service Centre did not appear before the District Commission.
Observations by the Commission:
At the outset, the District Commission established the Complainant's status as a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, based on evidence including bills and receipts. The unchallenged ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the Complainant further supported his claims for compensation due to the deficiency in service caused by the Service Centre. The evidence provided demonstrated a clear case of deficiency in service, as, despite multiple repair attempts, the fridge remained defective, indicating negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Service Centre.
Therefore, the District Commission directed the Service Centre to refund Rs. 3,386/- to the Complainant for repairs to the fridge. Further, it was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
Case Title: Midhun N.M. vs Coolcare Refrigeration
Case No.: C.C. No. 338/2022
Click Here To Read/Download Order