Between:
PRADEEP KUMAR KATAKAM
S/o KCVK Prasad, Aged 42 Years, Software Engineer
House No. 6-3-1511/4, S1-C4, 2nd Floor, Sachivalaya Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy, Telangana – 500070.
Mobile: [protected]
Email: [protected]@gmail.com
… Complainant
And
M/s SIDDI VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES (Authorized Samsung Service Center)
Address: No. 12/13/97, No. 106 to 108, Tarnaka Complex Inner Ring Road, Rangareddy, Telangana – 500017.
Phone:+91 [protected], +[protected], +[protected], +[protected]
Email: [protected]@yahoo.com
… Opponents(s)/Opposite Parties
04- COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
The Complainant named above, respectfully submits as follows:
1. PARTICULARS OF THE COMPLAINANT
The Complainant, Pradeep Kumar Katakam, is an individual consumer residing in Vanasthalipuram, Rangareddy. He utilizes Samsung home appliances for personal household use, paid requisite service charges of approx. ₹10, 000/- for AC maintenance, installation, and shifting, and is therefore a 'Consumer' within the definition under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. PARTICULARS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
The Opposite Parties are electronics manufacturers, service partners, and service administrators. Opposite Party No. 1 is the national corporate headquarters of Samsung. Opposite Party No. 2 is the authorized service center (Siddi Vinayaka Enterprises) responsible for executing service requests in Rangareddy. Opposite Party No. 3 is the local Area Service Manager. Opposite Parties No. 4, 5, 6, and 7 represent Samsung's supervisor, service head, escalation, and executive grievance channels who failed to fairly investigate the matter and acted in collusion to deny liability.
3. JURISDICTION
Territorial Jurisdiction: The Complainant resides in Rangareddy, and all service transactions, physical dismantle/installation handling, and damage incidents occurred at the Complainant's residence in Vanasthalipuram. Thus, the cause of action arose entirely within the limits of Rangareddy.
Pecuniary Jurisdiction: The dispute involves deficient service handling, physical damage to home appliances, and overcharges (paid consideration approx. ₹10, 000/-), along with compensation of ₹1, 50, 000/-, which falls well within the pecuniary limits of this District Commission.
4. FACTS OF THE CASE
The Complainant purchased a new Samsung Bespoke AI AC on 07/02/2026. During its installation on 08/02/2026, Rakesh, the service engineer from OP No. 2, also handled the uninstallation and re-installation of the Complainant's old Samsung AC (purchased on 30/06/2015). Rakesh forcefully handled and shook the indoor unit mount. Immediately after, the old AC started leaking water.
On 08/05/2026, engineer Pranay Yadav visited and confirmed that the previous installation was executed improperly. Despite weekly reminders, no resolution was provided. On 04/06/2026, technician Md. Miraj dismantled both AC units for residence shifting. The heavy dismantling was done by a single technician without assistance, causing negligent handling and strain on the copper piping.
On 06/06/2026, Md. Miraj re-installed both ACs. During setup, Md. Miraj forcefully shook and bent the internal copper coil structure of the old AC for over an hour. Subsequently, the old AC completely lost cooling capacity, and technicians claimed a copper pipe gas leakage, demanding ₹7, 606/- for repairs.
On 12/06/2026, Rakesh and Satish visited. The Complainant demanded to see the rust. Upon opening the indoor unit, no rust deterioration was found. Instead, a large puncture/hole with distinct torn metal edges was found on the copper coil. Both technicians verbally admitted this was due to forceful physical impact and not normal wear or rust.
On 20/06/2026, during a conference call, Area Service Manager Mr. Basha insisted on chargeable gas refill additionally, claiming that complete gas discharge naturally occurs during uninstallation which is not true. Despite clear evidence (photos, video of puncture, timeline, calls), Samsung's escalation teams closed all dockets (9489107, 9549298, 9610387) using scripted 'rusted pipe' and 'chargeable basis' responses, and repeatedly assigned the same negligent service center Vinayaka Enterprises.
5. LEGAL GROUNDS: DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE
The OPs exhibited severe deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Act. Their technicians used crude, forceful handling during re-installation, causing severe mechanical damage (puncturing the copper coil) to a fully functional appliance. They failed to resolve water leakage for over three months and failed to provide official invoices for ₹4, 900/- collected towards materials.
6. LEGAL GROUNDS: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
Samsung's escalation teams engaged in unfair trade practices under Section 2(47) by actively concealing technician-caused damage, falsely attributing a sharp physical puncture to 'natural rust-related wear' without providing any independent inspection report, and coercing the Complainant to accept chargeable repairs (₹7, 606/-) for damage caused by their own personnel.
7. PRAYER / RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
A. Direct the Opposite Parties to professionally repair/replace the damaged indoor unit copper coil and restore the affected AC to perfect working condition at their own cost without demanding the ₹7, 606/- charge;
B. Direct OPs to conduct a full technical investigation by an independent senior engineer from a different service center and provide a written report;
C. Direct OPs to refund/review all installation and material charges collected without proper invoices (including the ₹4, 900/- payment);
D. Award compensation of ₹1, 50, 000/- for severe mental agony, prolonged harassment, loss of productivity, and completely biased complaint handling;
E. Award litigation costs of ₹25, 000/- and any other relief in the interest of justice.
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment