Complainant Pritam Singh has filed this complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties and praying that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the refrigerator (Make Samsung) with new one or to refund the amount/price of the refrigerator paid by him to the opposite parties. Complainant has further claimed Rs.50,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment, financial loss and deficiency in services from the hands of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a refrigerator of Samsung Co. (Model RT34T4522S8/HL 324 Ltrs) from opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.31,000/- on 10.5.2021. But he was surprised when after 5/6 months of the purchase the said product was not functioning smoothly as the same was not generating required cooling for the eatables. Complainant was shocked as the said appliances started creating hindrance in a short period which was purchased by him by spending hard earned money and one year warranty was also given by the opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainant approached opposite party No.1 and apprised regarding the defect who told the complainant to lodge complaint with the customer care of the opposite party No.2 and complaint was lodged bearing No.2339032088 on 09.04.2022 with customer care helpline No.180057267864 of opposite party No.2. After that an employee/technician of opposite party No.2 came to house of the complainant on 11.04.2022 and after checking the said product he told the complainant that one electric part of the fridge is required to the replaced and the same was replaced by the technician of opposite party No.2 on 21.04.2022 and assured that now defect has been removed and there is enough cooling in the refrigerator but after some time same problem was occurred in the refrigerator. It is further pleaded that on 25.4.2022 complaint was again lodged by the complainant with the customer care helpline No.1800 57267864 of opposite party No.2 from his mobile No.9781023489 and same was lodged with complaint reference No.4346078927 and on the same day the employees of the opposite party No.3 who is the service provider of opposite party No.2 reached the house of the complainant and checked the product in question and told that the refrigerator was required to be taken to their workshop at Batala and assured the complainant they will pay visit again and will take away the refrigerator with them through transportation and complainant agreed for the same but afterwards no employee of the opposite parties turned up to bring the fridge to the workshop for removing the defect. Complainant made a phone call to the representative of opposite party No.3 on mobile No.7009989474 but they did not respond and putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and on 28.04.2022 they cancelled the request of the complainant without any reasonable cause which shows unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and now refrigerator in question is not working and same is lying useless. It is also pleaded that opposite parties are playing unfair trade practices with innocent customers as has been done with complainant and it is the duty of the opposite party No.2 to look upon the matter but they miserably failed to act upon the request of the complainant, hence this complaint.

3.       Opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel after the service of the notice and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and opposite party No.2 has unnecessarily been impleaded as party to the present complaint as no cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2. It was submitted that complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party No.2 on 10.04.2022 regarding low cooling of refrigerator in question and service engineer of opposite party No.3 visited the premises of the complainant to check the product in question and found that some parts of were required to be changed and the same were changed by opposite party No.3 free of costs under warranty and refrigerator was working properly and was giving desired cooling and all other parameters were within normal range. It was further submitted that on 25.04.2022 again complaint was lodged and a service engineer was deputed by opposite party No.3 who checked the refrigerator in question and offered to rectify the problem of low cooling free of cost under warranty by refilling the gas but complainant refused to get the same rectified and insisting for replacement of product. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the same is gross abuse of the process of law which was based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. The complainant has not alleged any specific irreparable manufacturing defect and inferior quality of the specific part of product and has also not filed any report of expert and qualified person of Central Approved Laboratories as required under law and in the absence of the same complainant cannot alleged any claim regarding replacement of the product in question and for the refund of the price amount. It was also submitted that reliefs sought by the complainant in the present complaint are beyond the agreed terms and conditions of warranty. On merits, it was submitted that a refrigerator in question was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 10.05.2021 for a sum of Rs.31,000/-. It was further submitted that on 10.04.2022 first complaint was lodged after 11 months of the purchase and usage of product which was duly attended by the service engineer of opposite party No.3 by visiting the premises of the complainant and rectified the defect free of costs under warranty by changing the required parts. It was also submitted that again on line complaint was lodged regarding low cooling  which was registered vide reference No.4346078927 on 25.04.2022 and service engineer of opposite party No.3 visited the premises of the complainant and checked the product in question and found that gas pressure was low and same was duly rectified by him. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.       Notices of the complaint were issued to the opposite parties no.1 and 3 but they did not turn up and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.06.2022.                  

5.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of bill Ex.C1.

6.       On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Sahijwani Director of Customer Satisfaction (PL & CDRF), Ex.OP-2/A and copies of relevant documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/3 alongwith written statement.     

7.       Rejoinder also filed by the counsel for the complainant.

8.       Written arguments not filed by the counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.2.

9.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants.

10.     From the over all circumstances as enumerated in respective pleadings of the parties, it reveals that the factum with regard to the purchase of refrigerator from opposite party No.2 for Rs.31,000/- on dated 10.05.2021 is not in dispute. The refrigerator started giving problem of cooling after few months of purchase, for which complainant registered a complaint which was attended to by opposite party. But the refrigerator again started giving trouble after few days. When the last complaint was made, the employees of opposite party No.3 who is service provider of opposite party No.2 reached the house of complainant and checked the refrigerator and found the gas pressure was low and problem of low cooling can be duly rectified.

11.     As per the warranty condition of Ex.OP-2/3 provides that obligation of the company under the warranty is limited to repair or providing replacement of the parts only. Repair of the refrigerator however never denied by opposite parties as the defects in the alleged refrigerator took place during the period of warranty and as such, for satisfying the complainant, ends of justice warrants that opposite parties should be directed to repair and rectify the defect of the refrigerator in question free of costs so that the complainant may enjoy the facilities of purchased refrigerator.

12.     Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint is partly allowed with the direction to the opposite party No.2 to repair the refrigerator at their own cost in perfect working condition within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which opposite party No.2 shall pay the amount of invoice of the product in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% P.A. till its realization. Opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay to the complainant a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                      

                               (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                         (R.S.Sukhija)                 (B.S.Matharu)

FEB. 02,2023                              Member                          Member

*YP*