BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAAD FA.NO.634O F 2019 AGAINST THE ORDERS IN CC.NO, 400 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM,H YDERABAD-

Between:

Syed Qamar Hasan S/o.Late Syed Khursheed Hasan Aged about 73 years, Occupation: Journalist R/o. 69 HUDA Heights, Breeze Apartments No.4, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills Hyderabad.

Appellant/Complainant AND

1.M/s. Samsung India Electronic Pvt. Ltd., Block B, Sector 81, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh-201305.

Rep. by its Managing Director. 2.M/s. Samsung Digital Home Rep. by its General Manger, 6-3-456/C, ^Ground Floor, MGR Estate DwarakapuriColony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

3.M/s.R.Logic Technology Services (0) Pvt.Ltd., Authorized Samsung Customer service Plaza Plot No.40-43 & 54-57, Kavuri Hills, Phase 3 Madhappur, Below Hotel Utsav Guttala Begumpet Village Hyderabad-500081.

Rep. by its General Manager.

Respondents/Qpp's Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. P.Pandurang Rao Counsel for Respondent/Opp's : M/s. Bhaskar Poluri - R1 M/s. Santosh Singh - R2 QUORUM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT HON'BLE SMT MEENA RAMANATHAN, LADY MEMBER &

HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RA0, MEMBER{JUDICIAL)

FRIDAY TWENTY THIRD OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO ******

Order:(as per Hon'ble Sri. K. Ranga Rao, Member-J)

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/compliant under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order dated 01.10.2019 of the District Consumer Forumm--11,, H Hy y d d e e r r a a b k a .

d in CC.No.400/2017.

2. For the sake of convince the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the compliant.

3. The brief facts of the case of the compliant a re as follows:-

The opposite party No.1 is a manufacturer of the Samsung products and opposite party No.2 is a wholesale and retail seller of the Samsung products. Opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre of the Samsung products.

i) On 09.07.2012 complainant purchased ^a Refrigerator and LED TV both manufactured by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 retail seller under a common invoice for a total sum of Rs.53,000/- Ever since the date of purchase Refrigerator is not working properly and till

29.6.2017 it was in the same condition. Earlier the complainant lodged ^a complaint with opposite party No.3 on 18.05.2017 informing defective functioning of Refrigerator.

Thereupon opposite party No.3 assured to rectify ^the defect but he failed. The complainant sent mails to the toll free Number of opposite party No.3 about the said problems.The complainanttook the Refrigerator to opposite party No.3 in the month of June 2017 and after attending some repairs opposite party No.3 collected a sum of Rs.5,934/- under receipt No.44874 dated 6-6- 2017. After repairs the Refrigerator continued to give same problems. Hence for 2nd time complainant took thee same to opposite party No.3 on 29-6-2017 and at that time opposite party No.3 collected a sum of Rs.4,548/-

under receipt No.45864/- dt.29.06.2017.Thus opposite party No.3 collected a total sum of Rs.10,482/-towards charges for service and replacingthe spare parts. Despite that the Refrigerator continued to give problems in its functioning. At the time of purchase the Refrigerator was given warranty of one year and compressor for five years. Though the product is within the warranty perioa towards cost Opposite party No.3 ^collected huge amounts of repairs and it amounts to unfair trade ^practice. The published from Dubai Circulated daily English ^Newspaper and his family is well known and he used to have frequent guests. During the Ramzan also Refrigerator gave ^problems and ^{it affected the parties organized by} the Complainant got issued complainant during said ^period.

replied by opposite party but the a letter and same was also got issued defective problem continued. Complainant a legal notice on 11-7-2017 to which a reply was ^given stating that ^highest level of service is being provided to the customers but the ^problem of ^working of ^Refri