Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/360

Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amit electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar Adv.

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 360 of 05.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   29.07.2015

 

Arun Kumar Yadav son of Shri Rajpati Yadav c/o Ram Pal, Village-Gauspura (Near Gauspura Gurudwara), Post Office Noorpur Bet, Near Hambran, Ludhiana-141008, Punjab. 

….. Complainant

Versus

1.       Amit Electronics, Shop No.09, Ghandhi Chowk, Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana through its Manager/Proprietor.

2.       M/s Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd. 15KM Stone, Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431105, through its Manager/Proprietor.

3.       Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd. SCO-8082, sector 17D, Chandigarh-160017, through its Manager/Proprietor.

4.       Tekcare India Pvt. Ltd., 369,. Industrial Area-A, (Near Samar Hotel), Ludhiana, Punjab-141003 through its Manager/Proprietor.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OP No.1                  :         Sh.Amit Saggar, Advocate

For OP No.2 to OP4    :         Sh.Anil Sharma, authorized representative,

 

PER GOPAL KRISHAN, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          This complaint has been filed by Arun Kumar Yadav under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs, by alleging that he purchased Videocon Kelvinator Fridge with warranty period, on 31.3.2012 from OP1. After one week, cooling system of the freezer stopped working and thereafter, complaint on 8.4.2012 with service centre was lodged, on which, Sh. Parmod Singh came for changing the cooling fan on 10.4.2012. Then again the freezer stopped warking and complaint was lodged,for attending of which, Sh.Parmod  Singh again came on 27.8.2012 and changed the heater of refrigerator. Two days thereafter, again the freezer stopped working and on complaint dated 31.8.2012, being lodged, one Sh.Shashi Bhushan came for disclosing as if the power control plate has been damaged. Letters to Ops NO.2 and 3 were sent on 22.9.2012. Sh.Shashi Bhushan again came on 16.8.2014 for changing the power control plate. Again the refrigerator stopped functioning and complaint was lodged, on basis of which, Sh.Vinod came for maintenance works. The freezer again stopped working on 1.5.2015 and then on lodging of complaint, Mr.Vinod found the power control plate again damaged. Despite these visits, the refrigerator is not working properly. Thereafter, complainant gave mobile call and even sent emails complaints. Even then the freezer is not working properly. A conference call was also given. For mental suffering, compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest sought by claiming that complainant has to leave his works.

2.                Op1 filed written statement by alleging that he is not responsible for deficiency in service and this Forum has no jurisdiction. Admittedly, complainant purchased the Kelvinator refrigerator on 31.3.2012 at Kalka. Complaint alleged to be bad due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. Op1 is retailer only and warranty is provided by the company. Present complaint is time barred and has been filed just to humiliate the OP. Every consumer supposed to use the product of the company as per warranty conditions. If some fault caused due to negligence and carelessness of the users, then shopkeeper/company is not liable. Complainant has no locus standi. Warranty is provided by the manufacturer company by 1 year only. Complainant got some annual maintenance scheme from Tech Care India Private Limited, Mohali for period from 30.3.2013 to 29.3.2016.

3.                Today, Sh.Anil Sharma, authorized representative of OP2 to OP4 appeared for suffering statement that repair of refrigerator has been done on 28.7.2015 and thereafter, the same is in working order. It is claimed that there is no defect in the repaired refrigerator at present because the same had been repaired twice since joining of Sh.Anil Sharma on 2.6.2015. It is also stated by Sh.Anil Sharma that AMC is valid upto 29.3.2016. Complainant has suffered statement that refrigerator has been repaired by OPs on eight occasions since from 1.4.2012. Dates of these repairs given as 8.4.2012, 25.8.2012, 31.8.2012, 14.9.2012, 12.10.2012, 16.8.2014, 3.5.2015 and 21.7.2015. It is admitted by the complainant that the refrigerator is in working condition at present since after its repair on 28.7.2015. AMC   admittedly is valid upto 29.3.2016. As these recorded statements establishes that repair of the refrigerator has been done for the last time on 28.7.2015 and today, the refrigerator is working properly and as such,   virtually the relief claimed through the complaint has been already granted by action of OPs. However, grievance now remains qua payable compensation because complainant claims that he has been harassed. The complainant is working in a private company and as such, for his contact to OP2 to OP4 on 8 occasions in connection with repair of the refrigerator, he has to avail leave for short period sometime. As and when the product is sold, then the same must be defect free. As the refrigerator has been got repaired by the complainant from OP2 to OP4 and as such, he virtually has to remain under stress and strain and even have to remain without use of the purchased refrigerator. Complainant has filed this complaint on 5.6.2015 and even thereafter, repair of his refrigerator took place on 21.7.2015 and 28.7.2015 after contacts with Ops and as such, the repair virtually has been done after filing of the complaint. For this harassment, the complainant deserves to be compensated by the costs of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only). This amount will include the costs of litigation also. That will be just and equitable by keeping in view the above facts and circumstances.

4.                As a sequel of the above discussion, the complaint stands disposed off in terms that complainant in case of necessity can file fresh complaint. This complaint is dismissed as infructuous, but compensation including costs of litigation of amount of Rs.5000/- allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP2 to OP4. These costs will be payable by OP2 to OP4 to complainant within 30 days from receipt of copy of this order.

5.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

6.                Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:  29.07.2015

 

  

(Sat Paul Garg)                                                 (G.K.Dhir)

Member                                                               President